User talk:Wgungfu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Commoddore Vic 2 Thanks for Gen Con edit. 3 Video Game Flyer Links 4 Your Advocacy Request 5 Block of 85.241.144.243 6 Joust clones 7 Claimed Edit War 8 Wing Chun 9 WP:OR

[edit] Commoddore Vic

Was there really a documentary. please please please tell me more. I would like to know about the story of this company. Bona Fides 19:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're refering to my edit in the Commodore International entry? On The Edge: The Spectacular Rise and Fall of Commodore is actually a book. A wonderful one, available at www.commodorebook.com.

--Marty Goldberg 20:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Gen Con edit.

Thanks for these edits, I appreciate the additional information on MIDI Maze's history and future. Alan De Smet | Talk 22:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video Game Flyer Links

They were all added by the same IP in a breif timespan, often where there many such similar links on numerous pages. Furthurmore, most of them seemed to be hosting copyrighted pictures of the promo content. What relevance does it add the historical signifigance? They may be more appropreate in an article about arcade games. Finally, the IP is located somewhere near Beaverton, Oregon, and the arcadeflyers.com is near Hillsboro, Oregon. Google maps puts the two cities as a 10 miles apart on roads. Thus as a result, links normally to be avoided #3 likely applies for these links. Kevin_b_er 19:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I also went for a second opinion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. To also expound, it should be that people decide a particular link is very useful, and add it. Not for wikipedia to provide a complete indexing of a website by the actions of one person. Its developed that several websites such as IMDB have become a stable to many articles, though that sort of came up through gradual consensus, not by one person adding it to every article they can. Several of those articles already had KLOV too, and mobygames. I would not have done such a thing if it were not for what I specified in the first post comeing through. --Kevin_b_er 19:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

While I won't argue the possible spamming (though being located in the same city is circumstantial at best), I do have to address this comment: "What relevance does it add the historical signifigance(sp)?" As a writer and site director of a major commercial website in this genre, I can say it has a large significance when discussing and informing about arcade platform games. These flyers represent the commercial viewpoint of the manufacturer and its vision for the game (which is a commercial product). This includes relevant vendor and operator info (if you're not familiar with the coin-op terms, vendor is the distributor or "middle man" and operator is the end location - i.e. the arcade owner), specifications (including design advancements, settings, available formats such as standup, cocktail, cabaret, etc.), artwork, designer info and more. This is also why these types of materials are frequently referenced and presented in books, articles, and references on the subject. --Marty Goldberg 20:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey I have a related question then. Do you see any reason why some of the images of flyers couldn't be discussed/commented on in the articles themselves then? --Kevin_b_er 20:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

They certainly could, its just nobody has taken the time to do it from what I've seen. It would probably entail creating a seperate header however in each entry, becuase the current histories/content in the entries here are written purely from the consumer/game reference. (Which they should be, as that's the average reader). --Marty Goldberg 20:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I should also add that copyrighted advertisements are allowed here under Wiki's view on fair use:

[edit] Your Advocacy Request

Hello, I'm Steve Caruso, the Coordinator of the AMA. The kind of problems that you are having with an anonymous IP spamming that article are better suited for the Administrator intervention against vandalism page. Reporting the IP there will result in a quick block and prevent the anonymous contributor from continuing their vandalism. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve, thanks for your response. I can do that for that address. But now another user has picked up where the IP had left off (and oddly the unregistered IP has stopped posting) - User:Haham_hanuka. So the problem will still be there regardless of reporting the IP that was originally spamming. --Marty Goldberg 21:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of 85.241.144.243

Hey, I blocked 85.241.144.243, but I did not block the other IP vandal (85.241.144.11) because only one edit was made on that account, and it seems that the guy's IP address just randomly changed (static IP). --Nishkid64 21:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the block, I appreciate your time and assistance in the matter. --Marty Goldberg 21:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joust clones

Hi there. I wonder about your decision to delete the "Joust Tributes and Clones" section from the Joust article. I spent a lot of time compiling the list, and think it was a useful resource to have in Wikipedia.

How does this differ from the "references to X in popular culture" or "influence of X" sections in most Wikipedia articles? It all seems like information that people interested in Joust would like to know about.

I realize you're a much more seasoned Wikipedian than I, so I'm really just asking for you to explain so that I don't waste my time on other articles in the future.

Just to be clear, none of it was self-linking or anything of the sort. Elliotharmon 20:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Elliotharmon. The decision is a general policy by the Computer and Video Games Project here and contributors overall across all the games (it wasn't specific to Joust). Clones don't have a bearing on the article content, and aren't viewed as being pertinent for explination (or illustration) since they aren't the actual game - they're clones, and usually written by homebrew authors. Listings of clones also tend to be personal "me to" links (regardless of whether they're yours), and Wikipedia's policy is not to be a collection of links. Well known commercial games that expanded on the original concept of the game (or attempted to copy the gameplay without infringing) are an exception but are generally refered to under "Influences" or "Legacies". An example is Arkanoid, which is an update of the game play in Breakout. Arkanoid itself, for example, does have a clone section of its own (which actually looks like it needs some trimming) - but its been reserved for well known commerciall "me to's", or well established (longstanding) freeware/shareware versions. You'll see a specific range of years and well established (enough to have some history) titles - very different than the typical fly by night plethora of "play alikes" that are usually promoted in "clone" sections. --Marty Goldberg 21:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claimed Edit War

Wugungfu, this concerns the Wing Chun kung fu article. I posted my proposed changes in the discussion section for one weeek and you did not respond and simply reverted my edits after I made them yesterday. You offered no explanation and simply changed them however you wished. This is edit warring which is discouraged. Could you please state your reasons, on the Wing Chun:Talk page, why you reverted the above changes? Tarkovsky 22:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been busy in the "real world" and other contributions, likewise I didn't just simply revert the edits. Out of the five seperate edits done you'll see some were kept (and very agreeable), and others were edited (including some of my own original text) and this was mentioned in the blurb. Simply claiming an edit war doesn't make it so. I was planning on responding to the previous questions in detail either today or tomorrow (sorry my schedule doesn't meet your demands). However, the posing for questions in the previous sections were by 203.10.77.190 and 220.101.85.11. Are you saying those are both you? Once again then, "fancruft" and your other previous useage of language ("pure fan bullshit", "fan shit", and condescending statements such as "i'm getting tired of these so-called....") doesn't exactly portray a neutral point of view to your edits. Nor does it help your position when claiming an "edit war". --Marty Goldberg 22:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wing Chun

I wont change your edit but I based the change on Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts and the Spelling and Capitalization sections. I do think that wing chun is in the same class as judo, aikido and escrima. Please take a look and change it or not.Peter Rehse 02:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR

Hi Marty,

I think maybe we're having some difficulty communication due to a misunderstanding of what I mean by original research. Just because something is true does not make it original research. Let's start with this definition:

	Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. ... An edit counts as original research if it ... It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.
	— WP:OR

Now, it seems to me that there is a great deal of analysis being done of past events in the article about the 1983 crash. For example, who decided what factors contributed to the crash? Did you? Who attributes the marketing model as one of the primary factors? Claims like this need to be cited; even if they're correct (and I don't doubt they are), unless it's published in a reliable source it has no place on Wikipedia. Hope this helps! /Blaxthos 20:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)