User talk:Drforbin6

Shades of Stanley Kubrick come to haunt the Decwar article? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you exactly? Drforbin6 (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you -- it would be against the TK code. I'm just one of thousands of volunteer Wikipedia editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go play your games with someone else joe. Drforbin6 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting guess, but incorrect, and sounds even a little hostile ... like you two had a falling-out or something. Whatever; glad to see you've rehabilitated the sourcecode and given it a new home. Maybe I'll stop by and mess with it a bit. I hope all is well with you. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More games. As far as stopping by..Please do. Intersting guess?..Remember what Sherlock Homes always said. Drforbin6 (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Decwar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what is your problem?

Xenophrenic,

I have spent many hours reverse engineering the decwar source code so that it can be experienced by people on the net. The portion of the Current Status which you seem intent upon obliterating in it's entirety is meant to provide useful information for those who may wish to either review the source code or play the game.

The removal of the phrase "Merlyn Cousins one early morning on CB simulator." which you refer to as egocentric, happens to be the truth. I can provide various circumstantial evidence to prove this.

Perhaps rather than playing your little power games you should try to contribute something. I invite you to make a contribution to the source code, or merely to reveal yourself to me. You apparently know who I am. The question is who are you?

Your ip address is from Austin Texas. Now whos lives in Austin Texas? Let me guess.

Thank you.

Hello, Drforbin6. The problem, since you asked, is that you are inserting text into a Wikipedia article that is not supported by the reliable sources required by Wikipedia. If you'll follow that link, you'll see that content additions to this encyclopedia require citation to reliable published references. Your content additions lack these citations, so they have been reverted.

When you say, "I can provide various circumstantial evidence to prove this", I must again direct your attention to Wikipedia's policy on Reliable Sources. Your work with game source code, or your personal interaction with individuals at Compuserve, maybe "happens to be the truth", as you say, but it needs to be accompanied by citations to published, reliable source material. Your personal word, or "circumstantial evidence", doesn't suffice for Wikipedia. As for your comments about Austin, knowing you, etc., I'm familiar with Compuserve, and the Decwar game, and the associated Forum, so I know a bit about the history. But I've never been to Austin and I've never met you. I just took an educated guess that the text you were entering into the article was about you. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply,

Almost the entire article judging by your criteria should be considered unreliable and unsubstantiated. So, I contend the entire article should be deleted. It also begs the question as to why the references to the "Current Status" section are being deleted by you? Do these also fall under your so called reliable references criteria. Your bad faith is readily apparent. Also my first interaction with you (whomever you may be) occurred around June 2012. Your first edits in which you totally deleted ALL my additions without even asking to confer with me occurred almost 3 months later. Sir, I'm growing very tired of your sophistry and prevarication. If you wish to come to come resolution I would be happy to accommodate you. But you DONOT run the internet or wikipedia ansd I will not have you shove your hollow notions of what is considered acceptable down my throat. As for Austin...your ip address was from Austin and anyone who reads the original comments which you made to me would arrive at the conclusion the you know more than merely a "guess" as you put it.

In closing the ball is in your court. Let us try and come to workable resolution or you do what you think you have to do, and I will do the same.

I think I see the source of your confusion now. You are confusing edits by IP 72.182.65.232 with edits from me. If you'll review, you'll see that while I noticed your additions to the article back in June, and I even commented on them here, I did not delete anything. Your edits were deleted several months later by the IP user, which I also noticed. If this game code originally came from Austin, and that IP is from Austin, perhaps there is your answer. I immediately restored much of what that Austin IP had deleted, except the specific uncited references to "Cousins" that the IP was complaining about. To be frank, your repeated insertion of your name, websites and repositories for your engineered game code probably all run afoul of Wikipedia's WP:PROMO policies (yes, you should read it), but I wasn't going to make a big issue out of them. I see now that it is your intention to make an issue of it. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is you who are miss informed...I donot intend to make an issue of anything. It is you who are making an issue. I would merely like my reverse engineered code to be available to anyone who wishes to add to it, or play the game. The is the purpose of the Current status section. If you would like my name removed from this section fine. I am running a server with simh open to anyone who wishes to experience what decwar or a decystem-10 running tops-10 was like. But if you are going to remove my name I request you also remove Bill Louden's name and alot of other portions of the decwar wiki which are not sourced. What you apply to me should not be unilateral, or do your rules only apply to me? My reverse engineered game code has been published by UT Austin. please see link http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/13510. notice my name. (is that sourced enough for you?) So again your hypothesis is incorrect.

The edits from the Austin ip address and you took place within mins of each other. For you to claim it is just a matter of probability is more of your twisting of facts.

Thank you.

Minutes between my edit and the Austin IP's edit? Try 5 and a half hours. Your code has been published by UT Austin? Try "Unpublished Videogames" according to the name of the directory path you linked. I've done what I can to help, but now you've gone and deleted a bunch of sourced content from the article, so...

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really....do I get to tell my side? Or is it like Stalinist Russia?

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

George Orwell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.22.126 (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Your code has been published by UT Austin? Try "Unpublished Videogames" according to the name of the directory path you linked." Published in the context of it being posted on there site..Would you like me to give you the name of the contact person at UT, or is that irrelevent too? I did not delete any sourced material. I am using your definition of sourced material and deleted that which had dead links or no links at all. As I stated earlier. according to YOUR definition almost the entire article is not sourced. And as far as the little discussion over my fate..it's really not going to break me up either way. Remember the internet is an open forum...totalitarian power hungry commissars such as yourself should consider this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.22.126 (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the internet, nor is it an open forum; It's Wikipedia, and as such we are bound by Wikipedia's policies. That may sound totalitarian to you, but it works. I've been trying to assist you, but all your baseless rhetoric is getting to be too much:

playing your little power games ... Your bad faith is readily apparent ... your sophistry and prevarication ... you shove your hollow notions of what is considered acceptable down my throat ... more of your twisting of facts ... totalitarian power hungry commissars such as yourself ...

The information you deleted as cited to a deadlink actually has a working archive link; the content you deleted as unsourced wasn't; the IP from Austin isn't mine. The article could definitely use improvement, and you are invited to do so, but the edits you have recently made (and the reasoning you gave) do not indicate a good faith attempt at improvement.

Please use the article Talk page to raise any concerns you may have about article improvement. I'll try to respond to them there. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious of the disposition of my case commissar?

The last edits I made were not sourced, that is why I removed them....You know it just occurred to me how the references you are using i.e. (Game Development Essentials: An Introduction; Jeannie Novak; Cengage Learning; 2011; page 44) reference to (louden et.al) ...What would you like to bet she (meaning Jeannie Novak) got that material from wikipedia in the first place? I guess that's what passes for history and knowledge these days! Circular references.

Just a note: I have declined the edit warring report made by Xenophrenic. However, the two of you need to go to Talk:Decwar and discuss civilly what should or shouldn't be in the article. With regards to the referencing issue, WP:V says that all information on Wikipedia should be verified by a reliable source. If that means the two of you need to remove most of the article, so be it. If you can't come to an agreement among yourselves, I can help guide you through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process to get other editors involved. Finally, Drforbin, please do try to remember to always log in before editing; it's confusing to try to follow conversations when you sometimes edit under this name and sometimes edit as an IP. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, Drforbin, please tone down your comments. Wikipedia is quite a bit different from other websites. First, we expect people to treat each other civilly. I admit that Xenophhrenic's initial comments to you in June were a bit inappropriate, and I've said as much to her/him. But please don't make wild accusations if Stalinist tactics; they simply don't help us collaborate to make articles better. Second, we Wikipedia does require that information be sourced, unlike other sites; furthermore, it needs to be verified by independent sources. Simply because something can be found to be true (that, for example, some code was uploaded unto some website) does not necessarily mean WIkipedia should cover it, if no one else independent has talked about it. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian....

Thank you... Regarding the ip issue. I was not trying to obscurify my identity. I will heed your advice and login. As for trying to work this out civilly, I am in total favor of such an approach and have said so. It is Xenophrenic who based upon his/her initial comments to me created this negative atmosphere. (Personal attack removed) It was always my intension to try and enhance wikipedia with the addition of my source code. Please visit my github site and review the Herculean effort which was required to bring this part of history back from the past. It's not easy working in Fortran 4 and Macro-10. I have even begun modifications to add cloaking technology to decwar in keeping with what was added to Megawars. The source code for Megawars is not available and is owned by EA games. You are correct, Wikipedia is not obligated to place any content on it's site. I only thought theses additions would be an enchantment not detraction. As for your comment..I agree Wikipedia does require credible sources. But as I said, one most be wary of references as well. Many times in the past I have seen Wikipedia used as a source ( for instance in a book) and then a reference is added to that very same book proving the content of the statement.

thank you for your consideration.

Drforbin.

Xenophrenic,

It was NOT a personal attack but a statement of my personal subjective opinion (feeling). Please stop editing every little thing I do. It's capricious and annoying. Please let me know if you'd like to confer regarding the article.

Qwyrxian..

I have extended an invitation to Xenophrenic to work together on the article and have heard nothing. It is becoming more and more apparent to me the he does not wish to cooperate. What shall I do?

thank you

November 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring. You had a whole week to discuss the matter of Decwar...and all you did was wait for the protection to expire and then reverted to your prefered version. It was explained very clearly above that you cannot edit war. Wikipedia requires collaboration. It's not optional. So I've blocked you and am going to revert your edit. After the block expires, you must go and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]