User talk:Thibbs

---

HELLO - This is the talk page for Thibbs. Please place messages to me at the bottom of my talk page and I will reply as soon as I find the free time. All comments and criticisms are welcome. Normally I will leave my reply here on this page. Thank you.

---

Read this.

A few hours ago, I added some stuff to the article about the bootleg videogame "Somari". I changed a word ("spoofs" into "modifications", added a "See also" section linking to that other bootleg game "Kart Fighter" and added a link to the Somari article on the Bootleg Games Wiki. I saved the changes I did but then I discovered a misspelling I did by accident. The 1st time it was reverted, I thought it was because of the typo, so I corrected it and added some more stuff about the variations of the game that I forgot to put down the first time. I also added back in the other stuff not by me that you also deleted because I thought bulked up the article a bit. I honestly taught my edits were constructive and I was only trying to make the page better. I am an expert of videogames and also bootleg videogames and I've played Somari and most of it's variations so I know what I'm doing. I don't want to make this seem like advertising but the Bootleg Games Wiki is genuinely a good wiki if you want to know about bootleg games. I posted that there because I saw wikis being linked to at the bottom of certain pages. For example, at the bottom of the the "Bionicle" page, there is a link to the "BIONICLEsector01" wiki which documents the Lego "Bionicle" series. The page on the superhero "Spider-Man" does something similar. I didn't know that I shouldn't have linked to wikia.com. I thought that if you link to something, it has to related to the page and it has to have a some information on the subject. I would be happy to add sources but those will most likely get deleted because of other rules unknown to me until it's reverted a few minutes later. Sorry for any trouble I might have caused, it wasn't on purpose. It's advisable revert the changes you made to the page, if you don't, I will. --109.76.38.159 (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Re: the bootleg games Wikia, you might be interested in WP:ELNO#12. (And after reading through Talk:Bionicle, there doesn't appear to be a reason for BS01's inclusion other than persistence on the part of affiliated editors.) As for Somari's pruning, the paragraphs were unsourced and parts of it were video game trivia. I'd only add that stuff back if you can source it in verified, secondary reliable sources (ideally those approved here). czar ♔ 04:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@109.76.38.159: I appreciate your efforts to help and I can understand why you thought the material you added was helpful. I'm sorry if I came off as overly brusque. I've seen far too many cases where this degenerates into revert wars and sadly there are a number of unfriendly administrative hurdles that have to be passed in order to get action on such cases. So I was actually going through the early motions required to eventually get the article protected. You aren't to blame here, though I would suggest using the article talk page in the future if an edit you've made is reverted. Anyway in this case I'm clearly dealing with a reasonable person and not a vandal so again I apologize for immediately launching into the page-protection pathway. -Thibbs (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Menacer article

Not to make you into the Russian source, but is there any chance you'd be able to find...

WTF? Unpredictable Views on" Light gun"
O Birling - Издательство Pubmix. com

That's the listing I found on Google Scholar in the depths of a Menacer search. Just thought I'd ask (in case you have the magic) czar ♔ 05:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting topic. Unfortunately I haven't been able to locate this source but if you're looking for another editor whose Russian is almost certainly better than mine, you might contact User:Hellknowz. If he isn't busy he might be able to help you with some of the Russian sources. Incidentally, there's a bit of coverage of the Menacer in RetroGamer Issue #14 (the article covers Radica's 2005 Menacer re-release). I could get you that article if you'd like. Good luck either way. -Thibbs (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay—sounds good. Would you be able to pull that RG source? I was trying to search their archives all morning but didn't find any Menacer coverage listed czar ♔ 03:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I'll send you a note tonight. -Thibbs (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Some Additions to the Bop It Article

Hi Thibbs

There is still a lot of additions you can make to the Bop It Article.

First, Bop It Smash has been re-released as a Black Onyx special edition and re-released in the UK in a black model with light blue cuffs. Second, Bop It Tetris has been released in a Silver, a special edition. Third, there is a new Bop It game called Bop it Beats. The game features five game modes, Classic, Classic Party, DJ, DJ Party and Remix. It has has three levels of difficulty, Rookie, Expert and Lights Only. The commands are: Bop It, Spin It, Flip It, Scratch It, Reverse and Repeat. Finally, There is now a mini version of Bop It XT. There are also pure black versions of Bop It Shout and Bop It XT and a black onyx version of Bop It XT. The is also a sonic green Bop It XT and a Caliente Version. --188.29.39.167 (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Polyphemus

Thanks for your hard work on the article, which serves as an admirable practice guide. I'd already used the Gallery format for sculptures in the Acis and Galatea article. By the time of your intervention, however, I was rapidly running out of time. Soon after, I left for Taiwan to put my experience of (paper) editing to use cleaning up after other editors in an art encyclopedia and, working a six-day week, have no leisure for Wikipedia. One point, however - now you've reformatted references, would it be a good idea to modify the list of things wrong with the article at its head? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I know all too well about time pressures. The reason I didn't remove the cleanup tags (and I'll mention this in talk) is that I worry that some of the other textual sources are likewise flawed. When the article makes a claim like "In Act 2 of XYZ's Opera of 1777, Polyphemus discovers Acis and Galatea and accidentally causes a landslide in his efforts to eavesdrop upon them" then it's fine to cite the opera itself as a source, but when the claim is "In 1777, XYZ wrote a politically allegorical opera depicting a clumsy and feminine Polyphemus who represented the Hapsburg Maria Theresa," or even simply "In 1777, XYZ wrote an opera," then the opera itself usually makes no such claim. The references that are not used to back up claims but rather to point to an example of the issue under discussion (e.g. the current Refs #21 and #26) should be removed from the reference section and I think these would best be converted into a notes section. They aren't references, but they are potentially helpful to readers. I'll set that up now. -Thibbs (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Dr90s back?

Any thoughts on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr90s and Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time#"Widely considered" line? Cheers. Яehevkor ✉ 11:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me. I'll take a look. -Thibbs (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

OK I looked it over. It's hard to say. The edit warring over that one line is definitely the closest link. I notice that they're also quite aligned in terms of favorite topic areas. Zelda, Mario, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, and Metroid are all top areas of interest to Dr90s. The thing that makes me most suspicious that it may be a new editor, though, is that the IP address is Irish instead of Japanese and last I knew Dr90s was a Japanese editor. I hope that helps. Thanks for working to restore the information and guard against this kind of vandalism. -Thibbs (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I know there's not a whole lot to go on but I figured it was worth a look-see. Яehevkor ✉ 09:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Definitely worth scrutinizing. It's suspicious considering how that was one of Dr90s' favorite edits. And he's been quiet for a while so that would have been my first thought as well if I'd noticed the edits going on. -Thibbs (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure

I've indicated my willingness to participate. Andrevan@ 23:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

DieHard errors

I finally sat down to look at your EarthBound sources, and the first DieHard GameFan source is rife with content errors and typos. I'm not sure this source is reliable at this stage of its life. Thoughts?  czar ♔ 15:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "at this stage of its life". Are you saying that the early issues of the magazine weren't reliable but the later ones got more reliable as time went on? That's probably true. GameFan used to be well known for its coverage of Japanese games way earlier than their release in the West. The staff had one or two writers who had contacts in Japan and they would translate a lot of material by hand. That probably explains spelling differences like using "Nes" instead of "Ness" (The original Japanese "ネス" really translates to "Nesu" so its Anglification is somewhat up to personal interpretation). I wouldn't really call those errors, but I'm sure that's not the only issue with the article. The truth is that GameFan was no stranger to scandal back in the day, and I definitely remember a translation scandal where aspersions were cast against the sometimes amateurish efforts and consequent errors made by the staff. In particular I believe some of Des Barres' translations were criticized (although if I remember correctly I think it was mainly due to the fact that he was quite young when he joined the staff). GameFan's coverage of Japanese games was sometimes months to years earlier than the games' Western releases, so I think GameFan can be a valuable source of info on Japan-exclusive content and coverage of details of Japanese versions that were lost during localization. But yeah, errors may well exist as well. My understanding is that the number and severity of errors decreased in later issues as scandals broke and time went on. The periodical has actually just seen a relaunch as of a few months ago. I'd be surprised if it had errors.

As far as how to use the source, I'd obviously exercise my editorial discretion and avoid repeating obvious errors, but I wouldn't worry about using it for its opinion-related coverage such as its rating. There's little cause for concern that they were unreliable in reporting their own opinions. I personally wouldn't be too concerned with someone citing it for factual matters that are probably true (especially if backed up by other sources), but I can understand your concerns over using it in light of the errors.

Sorry for the long response. I hope that helps. -Thibbs (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I read about one of the scandals on the mag's WP article. There was the "Nes" but there also was amateurish "it's" and "they're" grammar stuff in those articles (which I imagine would be picked up by a basic copyeditor). Also a bunch of that first article's description is just flat-out wrong, and the claim that the Japanese version sold millions of copies... I don't know how much of this is made up. I used some of the review for its critical opinion, but not for facts. Anyway, might be a WP:VG/RS conversation to have, or at least worth adding a note about citing from this era of the mag's life. Thanks again for your help czar ♔ 16:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. There's tension between needing coverage from any usable source and Wikipedia's reliability standards for sure. Some WP:VG editors operate under the assumption that Wikipedia's goal to to cover every single game so if whole genres lack RS coverage (e.g. early browser-based flash games) then the project has to come up with an RS that covers this new genre. Obviously the idea behind WP:VG/RS is not to create RSes but to determine sources to be reliable based on the facts. If no RSes cover a genre then the fault is with the press, not with WP:VG/RS's standards. But I do sympathize with cases where coverage only exists in Japanese and English sources are in short supply. This issue has come up periodically at WP:VG/RS, and the particular situation is complicated by the fact that the source seems to be of variable reliability (not so reliable early on, and more reliable later). So it might be good to bring up in talk. Anyway glad to help. -Thibbs (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I found out a bit more about the translation controversy by looking around online. Apparently Victor Ireland of Working Designs had become incensed at the GameFan review of Lunar 2 and began a campaign against Des Barres (who had written the review under the name "Nick Rox"), claiming that he had not played the games and that he did not understand Japanese well enough to translate it. A flame war developed on usenet, Ireland offered to give Des Barres a Japanese proficiency test, and a mocking website was erected against Des Barres. Big drama for the 1990s internet. There's more info on this and other scandals here, but I'd take it all with a grain or two of salt since so much of this stuff is bound up in petty personal politics and childish grudge-holding revenge. -Thibbs (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Casper10

Seems to be making up unsourced dates again, as you complained about at their talk page in November. I expect to be quite busy for the next few days, so I figured I'd mention it to you - I don't know what the "third-party review" you requested then was. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh the review I requested was posted to the WikiProject Video Games talk page (here). One of the admins there took a look and said that it didn't appear to be vandalism. I don't understand why Casper10 is unable or unwilling to communicate at this collaborative encyclopedia project, but that's his decision. Just revert anything that's unsourced and looks suspicious. Or add "citation needed" tags. I'm kind of snowed under for work just currently so I doubt I'll be able to look too closely into this situation. You could also post another note like I did at WT:VG, but no guarantees that this will have any effect obviously.

Thanks for caring enough to follow up on this, though. A lot of others would have just ignored it. -Thibbs (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I fear we are quite weak against the insertion of plausible-sounding facts. I'll do what I can. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree. Especially when coupled with a lack edit summaries and an unwillingness to communicate, I find the unsourced addition of dates and other minutia (like height and weight, cost, sports statistics, etc.) to be frankly indistinguishable from vandalism. I'm not sure how it should be handled. There's a lot of apathy toward addressing it. You might want to check out WP:SVT if you're interested in this topic. -Thibbs (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Interview response from Frεcklεfσσt

Interview response from Frεcklεfσσt

1. Do you have any memories of the original WP:VG? I remember early on, there was a big disagreement on what constituted a video game. Some members thought the term "video game" should only be applied to games played on a video game console. Games played on personal computers should be called "computer games". After a great deal of discussion, we finally decided that a video game is any game that uses a video device of some sort as its primary output mechanism. It sounds silly now, but it was a big deal in the early days. 1.a.Can you give us any insights into the founding of the WikiProject? No, not really. I joined after it was already founded. 1.b.How did you become aware of it? I think I stumbled upon it when I formed the Arcade game WikiProject. Someone suggested I make it a task force of the Video Games WikiProject, which I originally opposed. This was back when we were still trying to define what constituted a "video game". At that time, I thought "arcade games" were distinct from "video games" because, of course, they weren't played on video game consoles. This is another instance of things that seem silly now, but were a big deal--at least to me--back then. Now it's obvious that it should be a task force. 1.c.Who were the notable WP:VG editors you remember from the earliest days? To be honest, I don't really remember. The editor that sticks out most in my mind is Hellknowz who contributed a great deal to a number of my video game industry articles, as well as arranging them into a consistent naming convention. 2. Along with Wikipedia in general, WP:VG was considerably less structured a decade ago. Do you think Wikipedia and WP:VG have drifted too far into the legalistic and rule-based or do you think the current level of regimentation is a boon? I definitely think it's a boon. The project has become more structured and more closely aligns with Wikipedia's standards. Original research is nearly forbidden and editors really care about the content of articles. It's also led to more of a consistent structure to articles. For example, in most articles you're going to find Gameplay and Reception sections. I think the current level of regimentation may be daunting for new members, but they can be mentored as long we remember to not bite the newcomers. 3. Where have you been most active in Wikipedia? Mostly in the video game and video game industry arena, though I often contribute to articles I have no particular interest in. If I stumble across an article that needs copyediting, I normally go ahead and do it, no matter what the topic is. Early on, and probably the articles I'm most proud of, are the video game industry articles. I heavily contributed to most of them and some almost completely authored alone. For example, I overhauled video game developer and am almost the sole author of video game development, game programmer, game programming, game development tool, game producer and a number of other similar articles. 3.a. What kinds of articles are you currently focusing on? Video game lists. I'm trying to get all the video game lists, such as List of Electronic Arts games and List of Activision games, into a consistent, easy-to-use format. I'll focus on other things from time to time. For example, right now I'm developing the Oculus VR article, but organizing lists is always something I can fall back on. There's always plenty to do. 3.b. Do you still contribute to WP:VG articles? Absolutely. Almost daily. 3.c. Do you (still) play video games? Which games? Yes, though my tastes don't seem to mesh with most of the other members of the Project. For example, I couldn't care less about Pokemon or Japanese role-playing video games. I guess I'm more old-school, having been around from the dawn of video games. I play Civ V, an old Call of Duty game, the latest X-COM and right now I'm hooked on Don't Starve. I can't say I favor one type of game over another. Sometimes I'm in the mood for an FPS, other times I want something slower paced, like a good turn-based strategy game. I don't have a TON of time to devote to video games, though. Being a dad and a husband are my top priorities and my obligations there limit my spare time. 4. Which aspects of WP:VG do you think have improved the most in the last 10 years? Wikipedia's five pillars are definitely important, and the project's dedication to them is a boon to the project and Wikipedia as a whole. I've seen more dedication to them over the years. For example, no matter how much you love a game, you must present the material in a neutral point of view. The project is very concerned about finding reliable sources for all material in any given article. I don't think this was of much concern early on. But that goes for Wikipedia as a whole, and not just the WP:VG project. 4.a. Are there any areas of coverage that you think are particularly lacking? I think our lack of screenshots is the biggest weakness. It's not really the Project's fault, but Wikipedia's strict image submission guidelines. I don't think the guidelines are wrong, but too hard to use. I know I've uploaded and tagged images, just to find out that I missed some obscure tag and my image gets submitted for deletion. If I had my way, all video game articles would have numerous screenshots. Currently, we just mostly have the game box art. 4.b. Where would you like to see the efforts of WP:VG's editors concentrated? With the exception of game screenshots, I can't think of anything in particular I'd like them to focus on. 5. What advice would you give to a new member of WP:VG (or a new Wikipedia editor generally) today? Read the Manual of Style. Try small edits at first to get familiar with wikimarkup. Leave your personal passions at the door. Try to have reliable, verifiable sources for any claims you make in any article. If they're interested in editing video game articles, I'd tell them to watch the Video Games WikiProject talk page, even if they don't contribute to any of the topics. Seeing what's discussed will help them get familiar with what is expected and desirable. 5.a. How would this advice be different today than it would have been five or ten years ago? Gosh, I don't know. Back in the early days, I wasn't so concerned with reliable sources. Today, I am. 6. Over the last ten years what would you say has been the greatest challenge faced by WP:VG? What has been the greatest success? Are these successes or challenges reflective of Wikipedia's successes and challenges? Initially, as I touched on above, just nailing down what actually constituted a video game. Recently, probably nailing down what should and should not be included in the video game infobox. These are not epic challenges, but nothing else comes to mind at the moment. 7. There is some perennial grumbling at places like Wikipedia's Reliable Source Noticeboard that WikiProject-specific departments like WP:VG's Sources page constitute unhelpful decentralization of discussion and that different rules shouldn't apply to different parts of Wikipedia. Similar tension has cropped up from time to time between e.g. WP:VG's Manual of Style and Wikipedia's WP:MOS-JA over the topic of the standard use of Romaji in articles. Do you have any opinions on this issue? Should WP:VG's departments play a more subservient role in relation to Wikipedia or do they help by providing tailored guidance for gaming topics and by covering niche matters about which Wikipedia's policies are silent? I don't think having a MoS specifically for video game articles is a Bad Thing. The general MoS can't cover every topic in detail. I'm not opposed to every WikiProject having their own MoS which deals in detail with issues they specifically face. 8. Let's talk about the Sega Genesis, er... Mega Drive, um... Sega Megasis. Do we go with the more commonly-used name or the first name? This is a problem that I deal with often lately. Some editors prefer the first name the game was released under, which can often be Japanese for Capcom games, for example. Others prefer the North American name, since this is the English Wikipedia, which may or may not be the same as for other English-speaking areas, such as the UK. I lean towards the NA name since it will usually be the name most familiar to English-speaking readers, even though this may marginalize some of them. I think the NA name serves the greatest number of English-speaking readers. 8.a.Do we go by the greatest number of sales or by the greatest number of countries? The enormous and grueling debates over the proper name for this system have become something of a joke in recent years, but the issue does highlight WP:VG's tendency toward inward-looking editing. Game topics popular in English-speaking countries tend to receive thorough coverage whereas game topics popular in non-English countries (with the possible exception of Japan) tend to receive little coverage. Is this a problem? Probably, but I'm sure it's the same all over the 'pedia. English-speaking editors tend to write about what they know and have easier access to English language materials which cover English-language topics. For example, not many English magazines are going to cover how bad the Arabic translations of Call of Duty are or review a game that was only released in India. Plus, many English-speaking editors only speak English (especially in the United States), so even if foreign language materials are available, they're not very useful to many editors (and translation services like Google Translate don't always help a great deal). Efforts should be made to cover non-English aspects of everything on the 'pedia, but I don't know how that could improve. 8.a. Should WP:VG's coverage prioritize the most popular topics even if they are restricted to a narrow set of countries/languages or should it make efforts toward a broader universal perspective? Touched on above, but a universal perspective would be preferable, but I don't see it happening any time soon. 8.b. If it should be more universal in scope, can you think of any good ways to boost coverage of non-English gaming topics? Answered above: nope. I suppose we could initiate an outreach to other foreign language Wikipedias, but I'm sure most editors there face the same language barrier we do. 9. One of the hot-button questions in past ArbCom elections has been the diminishing role of Wikipedia's Civility policy just as Ignore All Rules has faded before it. For some the content-based edit history and the capacity of an editor to make positive contributions to the encyclopedia negates whatever uncivil behavior he engages in. We've seen civility problems become an issue at WP:VG in the last few years with similar resulting outcomes as in the greater community. Do you think this is healthy for the project? Should we be doing more to discourage incivility and to be more welcoming to our new recruits? Or should we strive to be less sensitive to the insensitivity of others? I think BOTH. We should always strive to be civil, but as a netizen, people should realize many others have the tendency to be jerks behind the wall of anonymity. But uncivility can drive away new recruits, and that's unfortunate. 10. Can you remember any specific campaigns, project-wide drives, or other initiatives from the past that have been particularly effective at WP:VG? Have you ever worked on such a project? What worked and what didn't? I know some task forces have had great successes, but I've never participated in any, usually because they're focussed on topics I have little knowledge or interest in. The last project I worked on was the arcade game infobox, which has been supplanted by the project-wide video game infobox. It was an interesting little project, but it's results are now moot (not that the current video game infobox is bad, it's actually really similar to what we came up with for the arcade game-specific infobox). 11. Where do you see WP:VG or Wikipedia generally in another 10 years? Debates over the idea of collaborative encyclopedia building have raged back and forth in academia, but this is gradually settling down. Do you think the WP:VG side of Wikipedia will maintain the position in gaming culture it has today or is it likely to lose or gain stock among readers? I haven't thought about this. This is a pretty lively project and I don't see it dying down any time soon, but I don't know if we have any clout among non-editing video gamers at large. Wikipedia is the first resource I turn to for information on a video game, but I don't know if non-editors do or not. Video games are a very popular topic today and I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future, and Wikipedia is gaining exposure, so my prediction is that it will only gain stock in the next ten years. 12. Given WP:VG's size and the scope of responsibility for our few admins, do you think there should be further stratification within the regular rank and file WP:VGer? Some have suggested that an "Expert" classification should be implemented, for example, for editors who can furnish credentials relating to the gaming industry or for authors or journalists who have worked in the field. Is this a good idea or are we asking for trouble if we seek micro-hierarchies like this? How common was "expert editing" in the early days of the project and if it has increased in commonality, has this been a boon? Has it been essential? I think giving people something of an "expert" credentials would be a Bad Thing. As a professional video game developer, I think I would qualify for such a credential, but I don't think my edits to video game articles are any more notable than any other editor's. Some editors who have no connection to the industry apart from being players have constructed excellent video game articles. Editors tend to earn clout simply by their body of work and the strength of their arguments. I think this is the best way to handle issues in the project. 13. What do you say to Wikipedia's and WP:VG's naysayers? Wikipedia comes up often enough in online discussions forums, real-time chat, social networking posts, etc. There are inevitably those who will go to great lengths to point out its flaws. Does this prompt you to jump to its defense, do you just ignore these posts, or do you often agree with them and expand on their arguments? Do you think your arguments in this context have grown stronger over the last 10 years? I just tell them to look at the article's references. You can't really trust one, single article. But you can look at the article's references to check the facts first-hand. And in the case of no or few references, a Wikipedia article is a great boon where there would otherwise be a void. 14. When did you first become involved in WP:VG and why? I think I answered "when" above. Why? I'm a professional video game developer, I grew up with them, and I'm still a fan. And I love Wikipedia. It's natural to be involved in a project I have a great deal of experience with and an affinity for. 15. When did you first start gaming and what was your first game? I probably became a "gamer" when I managed to convince my parents to get me an Atari 2600. But my first exposure to video games was Pong and I always wanted to play it whenever I saw it anywhere. It was amazing because you could actually play a game on TV. Amazing! The first game I can remember really being blown away by, though, was the arcade version of Space Invaders. Jaw-dropping is the only way I can describe it. The "thump, thump, thump" of the invading aliens was my first experience with environmental immersion. 16. What's your favorite game of all time? That's really hard to pin down. So many have had a big impact on me, but my short list is Wizardry, Bard's Tale, Dragon's Lair, Spy Hunter, the original and new versions of X-COM, the Heroes of Might & Magic series, Sid Meier's Civilization series and SunDog: Frozen Legacy. I know these games date me, but I grew up when video games were just emerging.

• Thanks Frεcklεfσσt! This is perfect. -Thibbs (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Interview

Wow this interview is a bit long. And I'm not sure I have a lot to say about most of the questions. I will see if I have time later to write a bit more, but hopefully this glommed together comment is better than nothing. I joined the then-CVG project early on in my work on Wikipedia. I started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/To Fix initiative to add infoboxes to all video game pages, which started in 2004. I was also involved in helping Super Mario 64 become a featured article, also in 2004: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Mario 64/archive1. I also spent time on the history of first person shooters, adding Faceball 2000 to the list, and in dungeon crawlers discussing the influence of Gauntlet on subsequent games. I know a bit about the early history of Nintendo especially in the USA. Some articles I created related to video games were Sega Sammy Holdings, N (game), Minoru Arakawa, Howard Lincoln, Howard Phillips, Nester (character), Shigesato Itoi, Camerica, XIII (video game), List of Star Control races, Universal Media Disc, Kirby Super Star, Mr. Do!, and various others. I also spent a lot of time uploading box art (this was before fair use doctrines evolved to where they are today). I was really a kid in those days - I spend a lot less time playing video games now, and my editing is mostly elsewhere too. #7, Wikipedia's broader policies take precedence over WikiProjects, this also applies to common name issues ie #8 (which is why the article is Sega Genesis). For #9, I completely disagree with you - civility and IAR are both extremely important, and contributions do not negate incivility, and similarly I disagree with #12 that experts or any kind of stratification can or should be implemented. Expert editing really never existed and couldn't. I'm not sure how the project or Wikipedia will change in the next 10 years. #15/#16 I started gaming on the NES and my favorites were SMB3, LOZ, Contra, the usual suspects. Kept playing through SNES Super Mario World, Yoshi's Island, Mario RPG, Donkey Kong Country 1/2/3, etc. Also a big fan of Super Metroid, Chrono Trigger, and come N64 Mario 64, Smash Bros., etc. Had a Pokemon phase as well. Went through phases of Halo, Diablo II, Counter-Strike, etc. as well as Starcraft, Civilization, and another favorite is Star Control II/The Ur-Quan Masters. Through emulation I have played many games that I missed the first time around, exploring the evolution of the medium through sometimes obscure titles that paralleled the Nintendo first-party games I mostly played as a kid - the Adventure Island/Wonder Boy/Monster World saga, Solomon's Key, Castlevania: Rondo of Blood, the Bonk series, the Sonic games, Popful Mail, Fantasy Zone. These days I may play a game of Starcraft 2 every once in a while. Love indie games like Cave Story or Luftrausers as well. I am also a software developer and have made some small forays into game development. Anyway, I hope this adds some color to your survey and I'm sorry for not answering everything or formatting it nicely. Feel free to refactor my comments. Cheers, Andrevan@ 17:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Looks great Andrevan. I'll work it into the final product and let you know when it's up. Thanks for your help! -Thibbs (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Interview

Sorry about not being able to get the re-interview in. I tried to sit down and do it, but didn't really feel motivated to complete it and just went and played video games instead. It's a shame, the interview seemed like it would be enjoyable. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah well, it would have been nice to include your thoughts but I gave you little forewarning. I think I held out for too long hoping that more of the seriously ancient members would respond, but I guess it's just been too long and they're busy with other things. You may get a mention when we run a piece on prolific article creators, but that won't be for a few issues. Anyway thanks for reading the newsletter. -Thibbs (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

File an ABUSE report!

Hey Thibbs!

Do It! You know who I am!--81.168.45.127 (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Kallmann syndrome page

Hello,

Thank you for the edit. I was meaning to have another look at the page today after the anonymous user had made those changes the day before. I am glad to see you did not change any of the English spellings of the scientific words back to the US version. I am trying to keep the spelling consistent throughout the article. Neilsmith38 (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad to help. That particular vandal has been plaguing Wikipedia for years and years. -Thibbs (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

GameZero coverage

Thanks for any help you can throw at the issue. I understand where you're coming from and as I find the time to add material to the userfied talkpage, I will. Maybe I can revisit the request down the road. Cheers! BcRIPster (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I did go ahead and added it to the List of video game magazines page, since that is simply a list of magazines that have been published in reference to the history page, and the magazine is solidly referenced on there under the web based magazines. I put an initial ref to the period Internet Yellow Pages index for historical reference.BcRIPster (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Question

About changing links, what if the information is just wrong? Like an article says the Super Bowl took place in [[Chicago]] when it actually took place in [[Dallas]]. Would it be violating my terms to fix that?. TJ Spyke 15:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)