User talk:Wgungfu/archive 5

release date march 15

I got it on a couple of web sites. search atari 5200 march 15 1982 in the google search. See what you come up with.

here is one of the sites

http://www.thegameconsole.com/atari-5200/

I see that you are a software engineer, and being such you probably do have acess to more of what you are talking about. But have a look at the websites in regards to March 15. And Try posting a reference for the August date.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.239.249 (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, most of those sources that come up are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Secondly, most actually repeat the older version of the Wikipedia article. Here are some actual sources:

April press release when it was still dubbed System X and being targeted for April.

June '82 CES where it was first demoed to the public. Hadn't had it's name decided on yet.

There's Atari's own press release from the June '82 CES which states "The ATARI 5200 will be available to the public in October 1982; along with ten game cartridges. By Christmas, the game cartridge total will be fourteen."

October 18th, 1982 "Atari Will introduce..."

Dec 18th, 1982 "Atari recently introduced..."

That should be more than sufficient. As stated, the sources you're trying to use are wrong. A console can't be for sale before it was even introduced to the public. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Atari 5200

Marty- Just giving you an update. I'm watching the discussion, but Kiefer and Indrian look to have things under control. I'll follow it as it runs its course and chime in if needed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

And I just saw Kiefer's post at WT:VG... I'll try to weigh in tomorrow. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Atari HQ "news" for 12/9

Hey Marty. I just took a quick look at your site (AtariHQ.com) and thought I'd point out that the latest news story, dated today, appears to have nothing to do with the site. It mentions a guy by the name "Osama El-Atari" and a fraud scheme involving a chain of restaurants, but aside from "Atari" appearing in his name, it seems to have nothing at all to do with video games in general, much less Atari-related info. Keyword issue? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, it's an auto-feed of keyword news through Google News and some other sources. Every so often stuff gets through that shouldn't, and I check it once a day to delete them. Thanks for the heads up. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VG newsletter interview

Marty- Would you be interested in being interviewed for the next issue of the VG project newletter? Let me know today if possible. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Sure, no problem. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll post some questions tonight. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Would it be easier to do it in email? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/draft. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

VG Newsletter

Just wanted to give a hearty "amen" on your wikipedia concerns in the newsletter interview. I decided long ago that adding to wikipedia was not worth it (for me, I make no judgment as to the worth of adding content for others), but stupidly decided that the least I can do is try to keep bad facts out of wikipedia's video game articles (or at least get people to think beyond the standard canned sources in cases where the facts may not be bad but the truth may be more complicated). Sometimes that feels like hitting my head against a brick wall (yeah, I know sometimes I hurl my head at the brick wall and wonder why it hurts with some of my more strident or confrontational posts, but doing it diplomatically really would not change most of the frustration even if it resulted in fewer arguments and headaches). I appreciate that you have the same philosophy that just because a generally reliable source says something does not mean that this is automatic and incontrovertible truth. I used to think that the move towards more and better sourcing was going to improve wikipedia, but sometimes it feels like it has just made things worse. Anyway, that was a lot of rambling, but I just wanted to say how much I admire your dedication both here and in the larger world to debunking the shocking number of inaccurate things that have been passed off as history over the years in regards to video games. Indrian (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rv vandalism

how is that vandalism, please explain to me your thoughts

You removed the name of the publisher, Nintendo, and replaced it with a made up category and individual. That's vandalism here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Article

Thanks for the heads up; I did notice that was coming. Your previous work in Retro Gamer (and elsewhere too, of course) has been great, and I look forward to this one as well (and the quickly approaching books). Hopefully your article can help change the perception that E.T. and a few other clunkers somehow took the industry down with them. If that's all it took to destroy the video game market, there would have been a crash every two or three years since then. Indrian (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

jack tramiel

will forbes do?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/04/09/computer-legend-and-gaming-pioneer-jack-tramiel-dies-at-age-83/

sorry, i'm a little new to the game.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prose la (talk • contribs) 18:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes i am a friend of the family. best. Prose la (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Engadget

Wow, that article is indeed a mess, but its not surprising since they considered Gamasutra's History of Atari to be good recommended reading. I mean, Steve Fulton seems like a nice guy, but that was another example of taking some of the common misconceptions that have been floating around since Kent's book and not delving deeper into the history. Before you helped Dabney resurface there were some things that were just not knowable, but many parts of the story were actually out there somewhere if you looked hard enough. Beyond that, though, the short memory people seem to have in relation to technology is truly disturbing. Its not just Bushnell's claims, other individuals like the founders and early executives of Apple are just as bad. I was rewatching that panel at the Computer History Museum with Jack Tramiel after Jack died, and there is Woz up on stage boldly proclaiming that Apple was outselling everybody in the microcomputer market in the late 1970s. Most people think Apple invented the personal computer, or at the very least popularized it, but all of that is, of course, completely false. Even Isaacson, who appears to be trying to present a balanced account of Jobs in his biography drinks that particular kool-aid.

As to Bushnell, at this point I honestly wonder how much of it is lying and how much of it is faulty memory. I have noticed that in recent interviews (including my own with him a few years back) that if you know enough about the history in advance to ask the right questions, he usually gives a fair approximation of the truth, but if you don't call him on some of the BS, you get some wildly distorted facts. He may really have been paying so little attention to microprocessors that he has no idea when the 6800 and 8080 hit the market. Of course, other stuff I think he must be distorting. I mean, he always tries to dismiss the Fairchild Channel F as something that never mattered, but it was a viable competitor to the VCS in 1977 and 1978 even if it never sold in quite the same volume. Its not like the VCS was setting the world on fire in those years either. I would think he has a better memory of the business side of things than that. I also wish he would stop stating that Atari sold 35,000 Pong units. I now have found a 1973 Business Week article and a 1974 Time Magazine article that combined with the Oui Magazine account we discussed a few months back and Baer's spreadsheets in his memoir prove pretty conclusively that Atari sold about 8,000 units give or take a few hundred. Its also funny to watch his accounts of Dabney's role in the company change practically minute to minute as Dabney's story gets more exposure. At least he is no longer trying to claim that he invented Pong or that Ralph Baer stole his college notebook. He even admits Dabney has a daughter now after that fracas over on the Atari Age boards. I don't know if you read Morgan Ramsey's Gamers at Work, but I think that is a good example of the modern Bushnell interview, an equal mix of fact and fantasy. Indrian (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I say faulty memory I more mean that he told the lies for so long, its become the truth, so that he remembers the big picture in a certain way and may not remember certain details anymore that he would have been aware of at the time. I could believe that forty years on he does not really remember exactly when certain chips were developed and has not bothered to go back and look. He has convinced himself that he was far ahead of the curve, so he's not going to let the facts get in the way. Sort of a combination of selective memory and the passage of time working together. I agree that much of it is puzzling since he has nothing to gain when distorting information that is easily fact-checked and already has a great deal to be proud of.

As for Pong, I will endeavor to locate that People Magazine article. I can certainly believe they got production up to 1,000 a month at one point, which does not invalidate any other info. It took the company a few months to ramp up production, and Pong was only really a viable product to around the end of 1973, after that the bottom fell out of the Pong craze, total video arcade game units sales declined by a couple tens of thousands, and driving games became the new hot thing along with Tank at the end of the year. They could have hit 1,000 a month and stayed there for five or sixth months and 8,500 (the number claimed in the Time article) would still be a believable figure. The nice thing about the sources I mentioned is that none of them rely on Bushnell solely for their info. 35,000 also does not make sense when one considers Atari's earnings. According to Bushnell, they sold Pong at around $1,000 a pop. Atari's revenues in the fiscal year ending May 1973 were $3.5 million (according to numerous sources) and their revenues in the fiscal year ended May 1974 were $14 million (estimate printed in Time Magazine). If all of that revenue came from Pong, that would be ~17,500 units. You have to take Space Race and Gotcha out, which supposedly did 1,500 and 3,000 respectively according to Baer's spreadsheets, so that's 13,000. Then you have to take out the late 1973/early 1974 Pong variants as well as the first Gran Trak sales and deduct whatever they were making from arcade operations and any other revenue streams they had. According to one 1974 newspaper article, there were 70,000 arcade video games sold in 1973 and 100,000 cumulative sales by the middle of 1974, so that figure would still give Atari about 10% of the market, which makes sense with competitors like Ramtek, Midway, Williams, and Allied Leisure selling between 3,000 and 12,000 of their own Pong clones. None of that is in any way scientific, but its only meant to demonstrate that the ~8,000 figure given by a couple of reliable sources is well within the realm of plausibility as opposed to trying to prove that figure outright. Indrian (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Higinbotham

Thank you for reporting about the image and copyright. I will try to update my photo information. Please be patient. I would like to submit possible proof that I am his son. My picture is the last photo in the following site http://www.bnl.gov/today/story.asp?ITEM_NO=964. I worked at Brookhaven National Laboratory myself in the Computer and Communications Division (CCD) and Information Technology Division (ITD) for a total of 10 years. I learned computers by way of a gift from my dad which was a Heathkit Microprocessor Trainer while in the USAF as a Jet Engine Mechanic. Then I applied for cross training to be a Computer and Switching Systems Specialist and was approved. I served at Offutt AFB in the 1st Aerospace Communications Group. I'll just leave to say I have been very fortunate all my life. Oh, by the way, our cousin found a video of our father in 1946 at the FAS. http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675072234_Federation-of-American-Scientists_William-A-Higinbotham_Albert-Cahan_Daniel-Meltcher

Sincerely William B. Higinbotham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higinbotham (talk • contribs) 01:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros.

Belated thanks for catching my error at History of video game consoles (third generation). I didn't mean to imply that Super Mario Bros. was bundled with the NES in 1985 but I can see how it came off that way. Good to know that there are other knowledgable editors around to correct things when you slip up.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breakout

In the middle of a move, so I don't have all my usual resources close to hand, but I will monitor this and help as needed. Indrian (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you looked at this any more, but I went around in circles with him a few more times and am done now as well so long as he does not try to change the actual article. He just kept bringing in more and more sources that state point blank either that Bushnell designed the gameplay or that Wozniak engineered the hardware and kept trying to claim they somehow proved that Jobs had a significant role in one or both of those processes. Then he just distorts responses, mounts personal attacks against you, or compares our position to a "coverup" or a "religious debate." No pleasing some people, I guess. I'll keep an eye on it, but like I said, if there is no actual attempt to change the article I think all that can be said about this has been said about ten too many times already. Indrian (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sent you that email a few days ago. I know you are busy and am not trying to rush you in any way; I just want to make sure you received it. Greatly looking forward to the books. Indrian (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds exciting! Like I said before, absolutely no rush, I am just thrilled to get a peek! Indrian (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for arcade game info

Which sites are considered good sources for arcade game info ?

I assume KLOV and the Arcade Flyers Archive are considered good sources and I would expect the MAME source code would be as well since MAME is emulating the actual games. Are any of these sites considered bad sources ? Are there any other sites used for info ? Asmpgmr (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't KLOV also a user-edited site ? Of course it is a very good site but still there are questionable things there. For example they list Tank III as a game which has been copied to the Tank (video game) article. I question whether this actually existed (see its talk page). They also list Polybius which almost certainly never existed. Asmpgmr (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Titling of the generations of video games

Thanks for moving those back to their original title. I noticed earlier, but didn't have the time to change them back at the time. Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I noticed all the moves after coming across the edits to the first generation page, none of which makes sense to someone familiar with the material. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blog post

I came across a blog post you may find interesting: [1]. It was picked up by Kotaku as well. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Odie, saw that a while ago. Just another new Wikipedia contributor who didn't get consensus or agree with the result (I wasn't the only one in the discussion), running to their blog with a personal rant and misstruths about the process and individuals involved. For example, saying I said not to rely on interviews but then presented interviews is a complete mischaracterization. I've always stated you can't go by interviews alone, you have to crossreference and vet information, and the problem with Kent's book is he didn't do that. Likewise, he's clearly confused in what Wikipedia views as valid references for a claim in an article here vs. the process Curt and I have gone through for our book. Two different things. As for here, per the Adventure talk page, he tried to continually present sources for a 1980 release that just didn't stand up to the scrutiny we provided. An award in a magazine for performance does not validate a release date for instance - or the last being the copyright entry for a printout of the game's source code, which in no way implies a release date for the game. That's not saying it's not possible for 1980, but until a definitive date is given Wikipedia has to go by what's available - the game's authors own words. I even took the time to ask email Warren directly about the 1978 date on his site and he immediately stated it was a typo. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ET: The Extra-Terrestrial (video game)

Sorry about the duplicated citation. I was trying to help make sure the jerk posting from an IP address who put the "rumor" mention in the intro didn't try it again. Boomshadow ^talk _contribs 14:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:History of video games. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please discuss the issue on the talk page before reverting again. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 17:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Home Pong

Hey Marty,

Someone, whom I suspect is your writing partner Curt Vendel from his handle, has tried a couple of times to edit the info relating to Home Pong on Nolan's page using your book as a source. That is all fine and good for the most part, but even with your publication, the story of Home Pong remains really murky. I assume the version of events you put in there was based on Harold Lee's testimony since you quote him a couple of times in that section and he has never really been interviewed before. This version of events, however, contradicts Alcorn's own recollections as presented in several sources, as well as those of Bob Brown (who has spoken less in public as far as I am aware, but did on at least two occasions take some credit for the initial idea through brainstorming sessions with his pal Lee before he was an Atari employee). I know Alcorn's memory has proven faulty several times before on key issues, but did you get him to change his story during your research? Even if you did, I believe the wikipedia pages on the topic would still need to carry both versions of events since your book does not explicitly discredit other sources on this particular point even if your version is, in fact, the true account. I would love your input on the talk page regarding this issue, not only for wikipedia's sake, but also to better understand myself how the sources fit together on this issue. Indrian (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, just emailed you. Completely understand what policy dictates, Curt was just not familiar with all that and I've informed him. As far as sources, we conducted new direct interviews with all three (Al Alcorn, Harold Lee, Bob Brown) which is where the version and quotes we have in the book come from. Our vetting compass for who said what during interviews was to try and talk to all principles about a subject and get them to corroborate without directly asking them to (i.e. letting them bring up the same information and not leading them). If an item was not corroborated and was unlikely or contradicted what two or more other principles stated, we left it out (such as Ray Kassar claiming he was in talks with Steve Jobs to buy Apple and that Steve Ross nixed it - which couldn't be vetted and was highly unlikely). Though if something was deemed plausible and wasn't cofirmed or denied by other principles, we put it in with an "according to.." clause. It'll be easier to start going through all this stuff via email, and then we can always post the ending summary on the Wikipedia talk page. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding: that sounds like a plan. Just popped off an email with the relevant sources. I look forward to continuing the conversation in that medium. Indrian (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found a new source

Hello you earlier reverted my edits on history of 7th generation consoles due to it being from VGchartz. I'm sorry I did not know it was not a valid source. I have found another source Statisticbrain.com which have the list for bets selling PS3 games and Xbox 360 games. Here are the links (http://www.statisticbrain.com/playstation-3-best-selling-game-statistics/) and (http://www.statisticbrain.com/xbox-360-best-selling-games-statistics/). Before editing the article again I want to verify with other editors and the adminstrators that if it is a good and valid source. Also It stats that COD: MW3 is the best selling game for PS3 and best selling non-bundled game for 360. Also one more thing don't get confused between the us and global sales ection because the global sales includes us sales too. Thank you and please respond soon. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Please take a look into what you are reverting Template:Infobox_CVG_system is a redirect to Template:Infobox information appliance Werieth (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2013

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2013, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation

VG Project Main pages
- Main project – talk
- Project category – talk
- Portal – talk
VG Project Departments
- Assessment – talk
- Cleanup – talk
- Peer review – talk
- Reference library – talk
- Newsletter – talk
- Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marble Madness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arcade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh.... just two minutes after adding an entry to the "Battlezone clones" list, my revision got deleted. Any particular reason for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.32.162 (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not notable and comes off more like an advertisement. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solo Martial Arts (Wing Chun and MMA)

Hello there, I want to learn solo martial art. So far, after bit research, I have come up with this two effective and efficient martial arts - Wing Chun and MMA. Both of them are not taught in our country. But I want to learn them anyway. It's my long term desire. I have found books on Wing Chun and MMA in Amazon.com and Banres and Noble - Wing chun compendium vol. 1 and 2, Muay Thai Unleashed: Learn Technique and Strategy from Thailand’s Warrior Elite, MMA Instruction Manual: The Muay Thai Clinch, Takedowns, Takedown Defense, and Ground Fighting, Jiu-Jitsu University and Mixed Martial Arts: The Book of Knowledge (No Series) . Being an martial artist can you please give me some guidelines whether they are appropriate for solo training and are they suitable for gaining proper knowledge on the subject. I have strength training experience but 0 in martial arts. Any suggestion would be appreciated. Thank you--180.234.252.181 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]