User talk:Wgungfu

Doug Enngelbart

Hello! Sorry to bother you! I have a friend who is having problems adding facts to his own Wiki. Since you reviewed the facts he wished to add, I am addressing this letter to you.

Doug Engelbart, generally credited as co-inventor of the computer mouse, and his wife Karen O'Leary Engelbart wish to update the Wiki with the news of their marriage. When they (editing as user Engeleary) updated Doug's page with this info, you marked it as needing citation, which seems fair. You also marked it as a possible conflict of interest, which I'm a little confused about, but okay.

The information was then removed from the page altogether by an unknown user with the IP address 97.73.64.141.

Doug and Karen, who currently attend church with me and my parents, and frequently eat Sunday lunch with us, have expressed their concern that Doug's children, who opposed the marriage, are trying to keep it off Wiki out of spite. I and my parents were present at the in-house wedding, at which I sang, my dad videotaped, and my pastor officiated. It definitely happened and was 100% legal. But Doug and Karen are not 100% familiar with the way Wikipedia operates, which leaves them confused as to how to make the edit as permanent or as clearly factual as possible.

So I am writing to ask how to properly cite their wedding. I don't think marriage licenses are generally available for public perusal online, and it was a very private and rather recent wedding. How would you suggest Doug and Karen go about verifying it for Wikipedia? Because of Doug's connection with developing hypertext, they feel like Wikipedia should be a great place for him to share facts about his life, but at the moment it seems to them a daunting task.

Thanks for your time! Galatea statue (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Galatea_statue Thanks very much, that was very helpful information, I will pass it along to Doug and Karen! Galatea statue (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Before Pong...

Hey, I know you wanted to get started on Pong, but while researching the game, I stumbled across some sources for Marble Madness. I wrote a draft in notepad and was hoping you could take a look at it after I updated the article sometime tomorrow. I figured while it was at GAN and hopefully FAC, we could start working on Pong. What do think? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC))

I'm not sure what you're asking? You want to work on Marble Madness before Pong? Or you are planning to rewrite some of Marble Madness around some resources you found and want to take a look at that before moving on to Pong? Or both? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess to answer your question, both. I did a rewrite of Marble Madness—everything but the lead has been redone. I was hoping you could look it over and check for any inconsistencies and what not. Then we start working on Pong while Marble Madness is going through GAN and FAC. I figured we could knock out Marble Madness quickly and then tackle the harder article, Pong. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 12:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

Started up a discussion area on the Marble Madness talk page then. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I put Marble Madness up for GAN. We should start another discussion on the Pong talk page some time today. I've been going over the article and have some thoughts on it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

FYI- Pong discussion started. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

FYI- Marble Madness FAC. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

Pole Position

I noticed that you removed the clarify tag I had on Pole Position. The sentence as it's worded doesn't seem self-explanatory to me. It makes sense that Namco offered Midway a choice of two games, and Midway chose Mappy, while Atari ended up with Pole Position. My question is how was Atari "forced" to take Pole Position? Did they have some contractual agreement with Namco that they would take whichever game Midway declined?

I'm not planning to revert or re-add the tag, but I just wanted to find out what the story was behind that line. Thanks. Kcowolf (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If there's only 2 games, and one is already chosen by Midway, then they're forced to take the other one. Its simple math. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Dungeon Master revert

Hello, i saw you reverted the overview of the magic and character system of dungeon master (game) with the reason 'game guide' stuff, which is in principle true. So why i think this stuff should be inside this article? because it was an breaktrough game (see awards and links) and defineded a complete new genre, therefore i think some introduction in the new developed magic and character developing system should be inside an encyclopedic article. Greetings from an IP and waiting for your opinion 141.52.232.84 (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason why the article was just delted, and all the policies it violates were given on that deletion discussion page. Trying to copy the info over to another page because you feel it should exist is looked down on as disruptive editing. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about the "spell page" discussion... my understanding of that discussion was that an own "spell" page is to much for that (small) topic, which i easily can agree. but just removing all of this information for an groundbreaking game of the eighthies without even cleaning up the article (the deleters werent even not ambitious enough to clean up the now destroyed references :/), is something dungeon master is not deserving. So i tried to integrate some of the major stuff into the main article.

And, like i said before, it was genere defining game with a complete new architecture. greetings 141.52.232.84 (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And like I'll say again, it was deleted for very specific reasons, which were clearly stated on the deletion page. It had nothing to do with being to small, the reasons were/are clearly stated and they included WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE for including unnecessary detail about gameplay, which is clarified in WP:GAMECRUFT. You, taking the same unnecessary content that was just deleted for those reasons and trying to put it in to the main article is seen as trying to circumvent the deletion process, which was achieved by consensus. That kind of information is not welcome on Wikipedia, as we have clear policies on descriptive game guide material here, and the viewpoint if it being unencyclopedic. I'm sure there's plenty of fan sites with that material that people can google for, but Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a fan site or a game guide. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, i'm not convinced (especially not by excessive referencing formalistic rules, because these rules are only hints which have to be discussed, especially because of WP:Be_Bold), but i see that deleting and reducing is more fun then extending (and especially IP are treated such bad since some time... i think no new user will ever "enjoy" extending articles from this project and originally the project was invented to be "participated by everyone")... and what makes me also angry, the pure destructive spirit of these inquisitors of wikipedia is seeable in the complete unfixed way they leave such "purified" articles.... (no linkfix, nothing just delete...yeah!) :/ 141.52.232.84 (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Be bold is not a license to go against policy, and I'd suggest reading the rest of the page, including "But not to bold". Likewise, it also specifically states its in regards to fixing problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, etc., and "You'll see. Also, of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally!". The page is meant to encourage people to get involved in the editing process here and not sit on the sidelines, which you are still welcome to do. It is not stating to be bold in relation to go in and add whatever you want to a page regardless of policy, consensus, etc. You took a chance and created an article without being aware of established policy and guidelines here. Nothing wrong with that, it happens every day. But then the normal checks and balances process here kicked in, saw the article and its content violated policy, had a public discussion and vote on it to establish consensus on that fact, and removed the content. That's also standard, and happens every day. Wikipedia has one main goal, to be an encyclopedia and provide encyclopedic content. This does not involve blind extending that just adds more content and do not fall within the scope of Wikipedia, and that's also why other editors will watch articles and edit out such content - all part of the normal process. I think some of the statements you're making about the project and such are coming off as childish. Nobody stated you could no longer edit on Wikipedia or be involved in the video games project, etc. Just that the content you were trying to add in this specific instance does not meet valid criteria for addition. If you did not take the time to familiarize yourself with policy and guidelines before adding material, that blame falls on you. Don't blame and get angry at everyone else for just following established processes here. Now, I really don't feel a need to go around in circles regarding this anymore, I think I've more than explained the situation and pointed you in the direction needed to continue editing at Wikipedia. Any further discussion on this is just a waste of each others time. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

listing under Wing Chun Branches

Sorry, new to this editing stuff.

I removed references to schools and branches. I assume my current listing is ok? (for Tam Hun Fan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranoy (talk • contribs) 05:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My Edit

I had removed that link (on the atari page; "Atari Gaming Headquarters - Atari historical archive site"), as when I clicked on it, the site ran a script (that was blocked, but a little to late) that installed a trojan (that was luckily quarintined shortly after installation). I ran several checks (as I had clicked on several links) but after seeing the same "you need this virus protection software" internet popup, and subsequent quarintines from my virus protection software (three successive times), I felt it was necessary to protect other users from something that could damage their computers. After it being restored (and retesting it for the trojan) I have noticed it does not come up anymore. It seemed too much to just be coincidence. Kaivarri (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Note: A general response would be appreciated. A comment of me being vandal in my talk brands me as a disruptive influense on this site. This I feel is unfair, as I have explained above, I was seeking safety for other users, and had no other reason (or desire) to delete a link to a site. I use this site almost daily, and only wish the information to be true, accurate, and of course not have links to something that could damage a user's computer. Kaivarri (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the link, there is no virus/trojan/etc. warnings. If you edit was in good faith, then its no problem. The fact you're a brand new account and your own contribution had been to remove that link with no mention in the edit summary as to why, set off flags. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It was, I've worked in the IT field, and it was just out of concerns. As you noticed, my account is new, I noticed the edit summary after having done the edit. Like I said, it was too much for me to just say "that's an interesting coincidence". I was looking for a way to report it when you undid it (and so I tested it, about a dozen or so times before I replied to your message). I have not again seen that script (and ran 3 differenct companies virus scans on my computer, gotta love having all that diagnostics software) and it wasn't on my computer. If you have your site hosted on a public server, it could have been infected prior to their virus software catching it. Kaivarri (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to address it as well, I did not add the link to wikipedia in the first place. Because I am co-owner of the site, it would be a conflict of interest, it was added by other editors. But as stated, there were never any scripts there nor have I done anything to the site since you mentioned the issue. Could have been something from the cache of a previous site you visited that was trying to launch when you hit mine (data miner, etc.) If you have any questions on contributing here by the way, feel free to ask and I'll be happy to help. Welcome to Wikipedia. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I had thought of the cache issue, and tested to see if this was the cause, before I made the edit. I throw my hands up in defeat as to how this came about. Again, I appologize of the inconvenience, and now that I have someone to turn to, will definitely contact you if I have any further issues with the site in the future. Kaivarri (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WillOakland / Coleco RFC

Hi Marty. I just wanted to comment a little on the RFC you started in WT:VG. (Don't worry, nothing bad here.) Just noticed that you'd mentioned User:WillOakland as a new user, but it appears he's been contributing under that account since February. (It's not at all clear if he's contributed anonymously or other under accounts before that.) So, at least in my opinion, he's not really a "new" editor anymore. :)

In looking over his Talk page, it looks like this issue of blatant removal of trivia and pop-culture sections in articles has come up a number of times before. I see in the history on Coleco that this person just deleted the section three times, each under a different account/IP (could have just been signed out on a dynamic IP, etc.) before any discussion took place. So this disruptive behavior seems to be a continuation of past behavior, which I find disturbing. I'll keep an eye on the situation and escalate via WP:DR and/or WP:ANI if necessary. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it. As I stated to him directly, I could even see moving those two entries to their respective pages as a form of compromise, but he seems intent on complete removal. Which makes my overall concern that he'll continue the process throughout other video game related articles, regardless of any guidelines we established through consensus here. That's when it'll start deteriorating in to disruptive editing, which is even more of a concern now with the past behavior you uncovered, and why I was so adamant about getting everyone involved now to try and nip it through discussion. I noticed most of his edits have been in regards to pop culture or AFD, so he does come off as an account with an agenda. As far as a "new" guy, no biggie. :) I was considering him new because of the limited amount of edits he's made in the past year and with him using the multiple anonymous IP's. He stated on the talk page he's been around with another account a lot longer, but I have yet to see evidence of that. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that his behavior is generally disruptive and he seems to be following a pattern of "all trivia/pop culture sections must be removed with extreme prejudice", I happen to agree in this particular case that the pop-culture references given in that article aren't really contributing anything of note. I left more specific comments in Talk:Coleco, and I support just axing that section and not moving the content to the other articles at this time. If a pop-culture reference comes along later on that more closely fits the guidelines in terms of significance, we can certainly add it then.

As I said, I'll keep an eye on the situation and will do what I can to try to smooth things out on the interpersonal side of this. I don't agree with Will's methods here. But after I applied a more specific interpretation of the content than he did, I ended up coming to the same conclusion on this article. (User:A Man In Black has already removed the content and given his opinion as well, so he beat me to the punch.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Understood, I just responded on the talk:coleco page as well. I can certainly agree with that, and its a perfect example of why the "Consensus needed" situation was defined in the guidelines. In this case, consensus is being formed against, which in turn solidifies the validity of the guidelines. That's my only real concern in this rather than they just being blindly removed as was happening. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(nod) I think there may have been a little confusion in your response, though. My first reaction to the RFC was that you actively wanted to keep the content, and not so much that you wanted to follow a process to discuss whether the content should be kept. I get the sense that Will may have reacted to you that way as well, and perhaps he might have responded differently if your response to him had been more clear about discussing it first. I still think he was pretty rude to you, but I can see how the topic as a whole might have been a little confusing at first. I hope that the discussion that's occurred since then will clear that up and, again, will get Will back on track. (I also hope that he becomes better aware of the processes we have in place for this, and not that he feels my and AMIB's support of removing the content "vindicates" him or "proves his point".) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I did want to keep it initially based on the state of the discussion at the time. When you reiterated what the needs consensus guidelines stated, I changed my opinion and agreed with you given the reasoning. And Will was not reacting like that for that reason, if you look at his edit and discussion history he simply removed the material over and over calling it crap and stated WP:OR, etc. My concern was that those are not valid reasons to remove it, as their format was following the guidelines. Which is why I kept pointing him towards those guidelines and policies and then finally did the RFC to deal with that issue as well as establish a consensus for or against the content. Two different issues going on and it appears with AMIB's response the guidelines may still be at risk. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I probably misinterpreted, then. Sorry for any confusion. :) Looks like an RFC/U on our friend Will might be in order here, though - I'll start that rolling by giving him a firmer warning on his Talk page. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Coleco

After I suggest that you might here to start drama, you prove me wrong by filing an RFC on me... XD WillOakland (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

An RFC (Request For Comment) is not filed on a person, its filed to gain a consensus on a disagreement. Its not punitive like you're making it out, you're confusing it with an WP:RFCC. And I fail to see what your response here or on Coleco ("Well, I see the drama bus has arrived. WillOakland (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC) ") was meant to attempt other than to goad confrontation and further create concern with other editors and admins on your conduct. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Such as myself. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Trademark is not the same thing as "ownership" of a name

Good catch on the no longer working link, however the other comment sounds a bit confused. You can certainly "own" a name, they're trademarked all the time, such as here. That's usually why you see the little tm signs by game and corporate names in plain text (such as press releases) as well. I work in the industry and deal with this issue all the time. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you know games, but your understanding of trademark law is a little off. A trademark doesn't give ownership to a name, it just grants a semi-exclusive right to the name for certain uses in certain areas to sell certain products. Other companies can use the exact same name for other things in other areas. It's not the name that's owned. The wording in the article was confusing and not accurate about intellectual property law. Worse than that, it wasn't backed up by any reliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, a press release written by a company making a legal claim and then reprinted by a Train Gamer's Association does not count as a reliable source for intellectual property law and the ultimate accuracy of claims of "ownership". DreamGuy (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi Marty, you've asked me a number of times to weigh in on various issues, but unfortunately I've been away from Wikipedia, and I'm no longer as active as I used to be. In the future, if you need the input of an admin, feel free to ask me, but also consider talking to User:David Fuchs. He's a great contributor, and should be able to help you out. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2008-11-23 14:01

No problem. Sometimes I thought of taking extended breaks my self. ;) --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

KGB

I was unaware that they were no longer in business over there. I kind of feel embarassed… MuZemike (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

MARTY I HAVING A ORIGNAL WORKING ATARI VIDEO PONG MADE FOR SEARS MY EMAIL IS JTRINGA@MSN.COM LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY INTEREST

Nintendo

What are you talking about? It is a free license playable interface hosted by the copyright owner Nintendo [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 04:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)