User talk:Thingg

This is Thingg's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

For the Record...(header added by myself)

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Archiving, shorthand, etc.

I saw your edit on the new user log and felt like I should reply, so here goes.

Archiving that page; I think I'll do that in a second.

Now, onto summaries; for starters, here's the main summary page, and here is a list of list of abbreviations. Hope that helps. Cheers! Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hello Thingg. Thanks for taking your time out to welcome me to Wikipedia. I also love video games! Also, I'm Alithgon in Runescape (Lv.24), but I'm weak because I got killed and lost all of my items... (including weapons, armor, ect.) Well, I look forward to donating to Wikipedia. I'm new so I don't know how to do many things when I edit except writing and my signature. Also, I HATE revealing my personal info, so I'll never tell anybody real life personal info.

Alithgon (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

This has already been discussed and people thought that since we have individual pages on each mechanism and process (Adaptation genetic drift, speciation etc) there was no advantage in a secondary division between the summary of the whole lot and the more detailed pages. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the size is references, which are needed to boilerplate the text against creationist wingeing. The article itself isn't all that big. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of computer games

I really do think my edit was more fitting. I've made similar edits on the relevant generations too.

The entire way wikipedia divides the history of computer games is all a bit wrong and way too America-centric. The names it uses to define the eras in particular are quite arbitrary- I recall mention that there was one minor book which used them which saved the person who decided to use them from being accused of OR. The 16-bit era is the most common name for the MD/SNES period, xth generation (4th IIRC) is never used outside of wikipedia (and those who took their lead from here).--Josquius (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I changed the 8-bit, 32-bit and PS2 et al one too. The bit names definatly apply to the 8-bit, 16-bit and 32-bit consoles. Its just when we reach the PS2 that there is really no set name for the generation. That's how the current system came to be adapted on wikipedia- at first we just called the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation 'the current generation' but once that was no longer the case there was just no name for it without making one up ourselves. They decided to wedo the entire lot to fit in to that pattern too (which I totally disagree with). --Josquius (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding NPOV, OR, and your rewrites

Just so you know, I an NOT trying to POV that article. I have been revamping all of the CVG History pages, and I tried to expand this article's coverage by including information gleaned from the articles on some of the consoles of this generation. If you could post on my talk page and let me know what I am writng that is POV. I would GREATLY appreciate it because I spent nearly 45 minutes working on that edit. Thank you. Thingg (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're new here, so I appreciate your zeal to contribute without being familiar with how things work here. The first problem with the Second generation edit was that you wiped the complete era (i.e. lasting until 1984). Secondly, all of your edits were based on WP:OR unless you cite verifiable sources. "and the public soon tired of them", "Though not the first system to challenge Atari, it was the first to pose a serious threat to Atari's dominance." "Although it never became as popular as the Atari," etc. etc. etc. all violate WP:OR. Thirdly, much of the wording violated WP:NPOV, i.e. "infant" "mercilessly attacked", etc. Wikipedia is not a personal article on a website, its an encyclopedia and strives to be written as such.

I should also add, regarding your comment "I have been revamping all of the CVG History pages,", please be advised that much of the pages don't exist in a vacuume, they exist because of the work of many authors. While Wikipedia promotes being bold, it also promotes don't be reckless. The discussion of edits, and even initially (before you make them) proposing them on the article's discussion page to gain consensus is also a normal part of the process on Wikipedia. It gives an opportunity for you to discuss your proposed edits with other main contributors to the article, allows points to be made on both sides, and in the long run saves 45 minute edits that violate other policies from having to occur. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to put the end of the generation date in my first edit. (actually, I was just starting to review my edit when you reverted. ...having forgotten once again to use the "Preview" button.) Also, the POV statements about Atari were not my writing; soimeone else put them there. (I do definately agree they should be removed.) The WP:OR thing you mentioned was taken from this page: Atari 2600#launch and runaway success (which I just noticed was labled as possibly OR, so I'll have to find something about the history of the 2600 to verfy/cite that) Anyway, if I remove the sections you mentioned, do you have any problems with me reinstating my edit? Thanks Thingg (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "revamping," I meant organizing some information (I thought) that was badly written/presented. I was not trying to take all the credit for those articles. Indeed, I didn't even add any information at all to the articles other than the second generation. I just tried to make them easier to read. I don't think my edits to the other pages will be challanged, but if they are bad, I apoloigize for it. Thingg (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First - try and keep the discussion to just one talk page. Most of the discussion was here on your talk page, so we'll keep this there (i.e. don't read my response here and then respond again on my talk page). Second, discussions about article content should really be kept just on the article's own discussion page. Third, yes there's still a problem with adding that because regardless of the source, the content still violates NPOV and OR. What you did uncover though was the pages here on Wikipedia you took those from are rampant with those violations themselves and need to be worked on. I thank you for that. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hehheh Sorry about the whole "back and forth" thing with the talk pages. (and thanks for letting me know so I won't do that in the future.) I apologize for my bad editing, and I appreciate you setting me straight. I decided to reword the lead of History of video game consoles (second generation) to make it similar to the leads of the other CVG History pages. My new lead contains some non-cited materail , but I think that most (or all) of it is common knowledge and shouldn't be a problem. (If you feel it is a problem, say no more and I will remove it.)

Again, thanks a lot for all the helpThingg (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 3

I am pleased with all of your grammar edits to the PS3 article and your link fixes, but the repeated saves make it harder to find vandalism. Could you please use the Show preview button instead of saving, especially when fixing the links? This would be helpful because the PlayStation 3 article is constantly vandalized. Still, great work, alot of the little things have been fixed.--WhereAmI (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. A lot of the reason for all the edits is because I was reading the article through and looking at each section for minor errors, which I would then fix. This does result in quite a few edits, and I can't think of any good way to remedy that problem because it is difficult to remeber the location of 5-6 edits when scrolling through line after line of code. However, I do realize that some of the edits could definately been avoided by using the "Preview" button. I think I picked up the habit of not using it as an IP user, and as you can see, I still have trouble remembering to use it. I'm working on it, and I think I've been doing a little better. Thingg 01:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on tense and title

Was just touching up a few of your edits. First, wanted to say congrats, you're doing a lot of great contributions here and you've caught on quick. Just a few things:

1) The title change for the production section of 7800 was not neutral (i.e. "abandonment"). "Discontinuation" would be an example of a more neutral word.

2) Some of your tenses were off, or you changed tenses that were correct. Please consult the section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Verb_tense in the WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. An example from a change you did in the Arcadia 2001 article: "and was powered by a standard 12-volt power supply" should be "and is powered...".

--Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for advice. As you pointed out, I still have some trouble with POV and I appreciate you fixing it. Also, thanks for the link to the guidelines page. I didn't notice that page at WikiProject Video games, but I will definately make sure to follow it in the future. (In my previous edits, I was just aiming for continuity of tense in a section.) Thingg (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. You should also consider joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games itself, as well as the Atari Task Force if you're interested. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Order Execution

You tagged the OoOE article for unverified facts. Was there anything particular that triggered that? The contents of article can be found in any graduate-level book on Computer architecture. Dyl (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I meant to put the tag that's there now. As for what brought it on, I just noticed that it provided no citations for its material. I am not questioning what is said there (and I realize that's what the other tag meant and I'm sorry about that), the article simply needs citations. If you could provide them, I would appreciate it because I am not too familiar with the topic. btw, I totally agree with Wikipedia annoyance number 2 on your page. Thingg (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo GameCube

Hmm. I'm not an expert on this situation, but I actually think Mega Man 5 has a somewhat good point here. If the GameCube is failing, you can't put failed. That's what's happening, right? jj137 ^♠ 01:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a very good point. If you would like to keep it your way, that's fine, because I think Mega Man has been going crazy to get it his way. Not everything here can be perfect. -- jj137 ^♠ 02:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 360

I understand your removal of the Future development section of the Xbox 360 article. So that I can increase my Wikiknowledge, would you please point me to the Wikipage that describes what a primary source is? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that History of video game consoles (eighth generation) has been created and deleted several times, and your content was similar to what was included in that article(s). When I said "primary source" I meant Microsoft because they will be making the next Xbox console and until they say something about it, all thoughts and comments about it are just speculation. I realize that Wikipedia has no set policies in place regarding speculation about future consumer products, but the first sentence in the fourth point under WP:REDFLAG illustrates what I am trying to say: that until Microsoft says something about their next console, any and all speculation about it is just that, speculation, and should not be included in Wikipedia. I apologize for not being clear in my edit summary and I hope this incident will not damage your opinion of me as a Wikipedian. Regards, Thingg (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Freind, Thank you for your help and also the links, wish you a beutiful year and also a successful.

Best Regards