User talk:Martin IIIa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I partially undid your edit here as no explanation was given for the deletion of the memory card section. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 21:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I just deleted it because it seems like a misleading statement(as prior to Pandemonium! there were more console games which used a password system than ones which used memory cards) and because it doesn't really add anything to the article. Since you seem to be a caretaker for the article, I bow to your judgment that it should be left in.Martin IIIa (talk) 24:??, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It was more that it was unexplained than anything. I don't remember much of the game (I was five when it came out) and I had the PC version anyway. If most of the other games that were released at the time had passwords, then delete it. If not, I think we should keep it in. And I'm not really a caretaker, at least, not any more than you are since Wikipedia is editable by all. I just seem to be the only one to watch the page anymore... --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think at the time of the game's release console games had mostly gone over to the save system, so there's nothing really wrong with the part I had deleted. I just was worried it would give people the impression that the password system in Pandemonium! was a new thing, when before the mid-90s it was the most primary way to save games' progress. And you are a caretaker in the sense that you've obviously been looking over the article for a while and thus have a decent sense of how it flows and such, whereas I just stumbled on the article two days ago.
You played Pandemonium! when you were five? Yikes. I first played it when I was about 20, and consider it one of the hardest games I've ever played.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I only ever beat the game once. :) After that, it got uninstalled, reinstalled and I could never quite make it to the Wishing Engine again. I managed Pandemonium 2 every time though and I miss them (didn't work on XP so I sold them along with a lot of other favourite games that I feel horribly nostalgic for). They need to release the games because I loved them and it's so amazingly hard to find a copy nowadays.
I rewrote it here. I think that should probably do it. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 15:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


Sure thing; check your e-mail! Also, did you mean the review for the Atari Lynx console itself (from Dragon #155)? BOZ (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem - glad to help. :) BOZ (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


No need to thank for it, buddy. After all, it's "our duty" to help improve the Wikipedia and its articles, right? I'm just glad of being able to contribute. ;) See ya' around. — Holothurion (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations in plot summaries[edit]

Sorry, the "no citations needed to write a plot summary from a primary source (ie the work itself)" is an implicit rule on the site (you see it on Discussion pages a lot), so it's not codified anywhere. You can read all of the explicit Wikipedia guidelines on plot summaries at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. If someone argues about it, I just point to Encyclopedia Britannica, which only cites direct quotations from works of literature and film, and also to that summary guideline, which has no rule stating primary sources must be cited.Kthejoker (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Total Eclipse[edit]

Finally got back to the Total Eclipse 3DO release date issue and added my sources to the discussion page. Sorry for the delay. Brideck (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi. I'm working to produce a quality page here (as most online resources are out of date and factually incorrect). I feel that some of your edits are a bit over zealous. Could you calm down a bit, and let's collaborate on this thing? I don't know very much about proper formatting, and could use some guidance. (talk)

Hello. Saw this from a program. You can start by checking out Manual of style.. it's pretty elaborate and the rule of thumb for formatting articles.  – Tommy [message] 14:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I explained all the issues relating to the recent edits to the Gamate article on Talk: Gamate, so I'm not sure what you want me to add to that. I've been perfectly calm throughout my history of editing that article, so there's nothing I can change on that front.
As far as formatting, I concur with Tommy about checking out the Manual of Style. Also, I've found it very useful to take a look at the formatting for similar articles by clicking on "Edit" and comparing the coding and spacing in what you see there with what appears on the article. If possible, stick to A-Class articles for reference. Hope that helps.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

An Apology[edit]

First off I would like to apologize for coming across as insulting. However you should realize that my response was largely due to the fact that you were continually attacking my claims in response to the Dreamcast without backing up any of them, instead claiming that everything I had said was a lie and misinformation:
"I won't even bother addressing your other lies. Since this matter has started you've done nothing but make disruptive edits, post false information, and otherwise flaunt your open disregard for Wikipedia's rules. I really hope you're not planning to keep working on Wikipedia for long, as behavior like yours tends to lead to getting indefinitely blocked."(emphasis mine)
I would like to ask that you apologize back for continually stating that my info was incorrect or that if you won't that you at least provide me a single example of something I said in reference to the Dreamcast article which was incorrect. Cheers.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize, just do yourself a favor and read up on Wikipedia's conduct policies. They really do provide good guidance.
I didn't back up my refutation of your claims because there was no need. Most people who have heard of the Dreamcast would already know that your claims are false; for the others, as I already posted on the Gamecube talk page, they can get the facts from any reliable source covering the Dreamcast. It's pretty common info. If you're not willing to look it up yourself, well, I don't know what else to say.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Nintendo GameCube, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a good idea to examine an edit before you revert it and accuse the editor of destructive edits. In fact, I was reversing an edit by Wikiposter0123 in which he edited my comments - which, as you just noted, is generally forbidden by Wikipedia. So in essence, you've become guilty of the same thing you're accusing me of doing. Also, it's a good idea to do a brief check of the article's history, in which you can see that I directed Wikiposter0123 to an article on proper talk page editing, but he remains antagonistic. I'm actually at the point where I believe I'll have to report the incident to administrators in order to prevent the page from permanently recording my posts as having been made by Wikiposter0123. Again, try to be more careful in the future.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I just noticed the talk page reverts in question. It appears that Wikiposter0123 was trying to make a good-faith attempt to reply to some of the things that you said. So rather than simply revert Wikiposter0123, a more appropriate course of action would have been to insert {{subst:interrupted|Martin IIIa}} immediately before each interruption to your message if Wikiposter0123 didn't do so. Just thought I should let you know. ;) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a nice suggestion, and under ordinary circumstances that's exactly what I would have done. However, Wikiposter0123 had been making disruptive edits to the same talk page and its corresponding article for several days, and it is more than likely that his edit to my talk pages was just a continuation of this behavior. And note that the edit you're suggesting is technically against Wikipedia policy, since it is an edit or Wikiposter0123's post; thus, this would have simply given him an opening to cry foul and further drag out his disruption.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: he cited WP:SIGCLEAN stating "Your edit falsified the sigs/time stamps for the page." which I understood as changing the date on my posts to mislead editors as to when I was posting. Forgive me for misreading that, but from my point of view Martin has continually mocked and attacked me for "posting false information" about the Dreamcast even after I have proven the info to be correct and it just seems to me now that he is trying to prevent me from responding to him with multiple threats of indef blocks. I have never seen the {{subst:interrupted|Martin IIIa}} and have only seen editors respond to others comments the way I did just now. I would have been happy to add that if I had know about it.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
(1)Had you merely clicked on the link I provided you when you first made your edit to my comments, you would have seen the nowiki.
(2)There was no mocking or attacking; I simply directed people to check reliable sources rather than accept your false statements. If you interpret correcting anything you say to be an attack, then I suggest you avoid posting anything on the internet.
(3)You didn't prove anything to be correct. You simply threw a fit and claimed that all reliable sources dealing with the Dreamcast are false, and when that failed to get a rise out of anyone, you proceeded to flip your own statements around.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Two cents here - (following the long ANI post)
Him inserting his comments into the middle of your long comments is not "editing your comments". It's hard to follow and doing it without the interrupted tag (as indicated above) is highly suboptimal. But it's not editing your comments. He was commenting, in response to yours.
Your removing his comments like that was in fact a violation of policy.
I believe that you meant well, but on that point he merely needed some education on editing and formatting etiquette, and you're technically the one who violated policy.
I don't see that by itself this rises to the level of requiring admin intervention, but please don't do it again.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Georgewilliamherbert, I suggest that you stop inventing your own rules for Wikipedia and start looking at what official Wikipedia policy says. Also, a quick look at the history page will show that I provided the education you refer to, and Wikiposter0123 blatantly ignored it and continued with his revert warring.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it requires admin intervention either, but I am afraid he is going to report me and start a ban discussion against me and I would just like to get this resolved.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Um, why would you fear that after you've stopped the disruptive behavior that would have required me to report the incident to administrators? The history page for Talk: Nintendo GameCube shows that you fixed your disruptive edit hours before you made the above post. As I believe I've told you, the process for reporting an incident is tiresome and depressing, and I prefer to not have to go through with it, despite the fact that it does get results(in my experience).--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: Weis and Penrod[edit]

No problem; I am glad to have helped out in that area. Good luck on the Weis and Penrod pages. I think I'll add them to my watchlist. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


Most of your edits of Curved Air albums have left the "Reception" paragraph appearing blank User:RGCorris|RGCorris]] (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Relax, I'm getting to it. Good(or even halfway decent) Wikipedia articles don't just appear overnight, and for the moment the first concern is replacing the deprecated infobox review template with the standard review template and "Reception" section.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Having just had an article deleted within minutes of creating it, you are running the risk of some over-zealous editor zapping your work (or reverting to a previous edit) if you leave it half-done. RGCorris (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Every edit runs the risk of being reverted by another editor. In fact, edits which add actual content are far more likely to be reverted than edits which simply fix a formatting problem.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, I don't know who told you that an article I created was deleted within minutes of my creating it, but that is completely false. No article I've created has ever been deleted, much less "within minutes of creating it".--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Not your article, mine RGCorris (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
You might like to look at : [Probable spam link removed. - Martin III] RGCorris (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I make a habit of not clicking on random links that people send me.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Airconditioning dispute on DRN[edit]

Hi there, this is just a note to say I left a response at WP:DRN#Airconditioning Dispute. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Сurved Air[edit]

Well done! Now I see how messy my 'everything goes'-version was. But your no-frills sort of attitude, frankly, looks like another extreme. Are you sure details (like the band having been pulled off stage in Boston) should necessarily perish, and why? I'm in no way inclined to dispute anything, just wondering. -- Evermore2 (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm impressed that you're taking this in stride. I hadn't realized until now that most of the expansion of the article was your work, and I know how aggravating it can be when your work is removed by another editor.
My editing instincts can be compared to that of a razor, and at times I get a bit caught up and remove something which should have simply been moved to another part of the article or reworked a bit. As to the band being pulled off stage in Boston, though, my concern was with how far we can trust Francis Monkman's hypothesis as to the reason. Certain things said by musicians in interviews have to be taken with a grain of salt, and the two main phrases which set off an alarm in my head are "The reason So-and-so left the band is" and "because they were afraid we'd upstage them." There are many reasons Curved Air might have been taken off stage, and fear that they would upstage the main act isn't one of the more likely ones. I'd feel better about leaving that bit in there(or, now that I've removed it, adding it back in) if we could find a source supporting Francis's theory. Unfortunately, my resources are a bit limited; of the four non-online sources I have covering Curved Air, two deal almost solely with 1974-76, and the other two don't have much in the way of details. I'll see what I can dig up, though, and if you find anything, feel free to add that bit back in yourself.
Please let me know if you see anything else you think I've removed too hastily.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
No, no, I totally accept your point. Some of the things removed were hardly significant, others would fit into some satellite entries like Phantasmagoria or, come to think of it, Francis Monkman, should they ever be expanded (or, in the case of Back Street Luv, created). I tend to get carried away with quantities, frankly, so any quality-improving treatment with me is very welcome. And you trimmed the article down into looking perfectly nice and neat. -- Evermore2 (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Iron Butterfly Metamorphosis Page[edit]

I have been trying to fix the error on the page for a while now. I am a member of Iron Butterfly and it is concerning that people keep reverting the page to be incorrect.

Mike Pinera & El Rhino were members of the band from the start of sessions of Metamorphosis. They replaced Erik Braunn when he left the band. Richie & Bill were session musicians on 2 tracks (Soldier In Our Town and Slower Than Guns) Though it is confusing to some, the name of the album was to highlight them, not to imply that they weren't part of the band. Please fix this the proper way.

It isn't the name of the album which indicates that Pinera and Rhino weren't members of Iron Butterfly at the time(though the name is certainly suggestive, particularly the fact that it's "Iron Butterfly WITH", rather than "featuring", which is the term generally used when a record label wants to highlight individual members). It's the songwriting credits. On the album itself, even on the label, the songs are ambiguously credited as "written by Iron Butterfly", with Robert Woods Edmonson contributing lyrics to a few songs. I checked out all nine songs in BMI's records, and every single one is listed as by either "Bushy Ron / Dorman Lee / Ingle Doug" or "Bushy Ron / Dorman Lee / Edmonson Robert Woods / Ingle Doug". So in the songwriting credits, Iron Butterfly corresponds to Bushy, Dorman, and Ingle. Also, while it's possible that all nine songs were genuine collaborations between Bushy, Dorman, and Ingle, given Iron Butterfly's history, it's far more likely that this is a typical case of a band agreeing to evenly split royalties on all songs. So if Pinera and Rhino were part of the band at the time, that raises the question: Why were they cut out of the deal?
I freely admit that I find the way Mike Pinera and El Rhino are credited on the album to be very puzzling, and it doesn't help that biographers (understandably) prefer to keep things simple and just say that Pinera and Rhino were already official members at the time of Metamorphosis. I imagine they could have joined the band but been credited as non-members due to contractual issues or some such, but until we find a good source with an alternate explanation for why the songwriting credits identify Iron Butterfly as a trio, I'm not comfortable with the article saying that they were members with no explanation beyond that.
By the way, whether or not it's actually true, I'd avoid telling people on Wikipedia that you're a member of Iron Butterfly. While it might seem to add credibility to your edits, in actuality it's more likely to arouse suspicions of Conflict of Interest.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The liner notes of the reissue of Metamorphosis clearly make it point to the fact that they were members, not hired guns. In addition, Pinera was the main writer of Best Years Of Our Lives & Butterfly Bleu. Rhino wrote Stone Believer. (Proof

Besides, I dont know of ANY group who had session musicians sing on a large part of their album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of who actually wrote the songs, they're officially registered as the work of Ingle/Bushy/Dorman, and due to legal issues, the official composers are what album sleeves use for their credits.
The Chieftans, Mike + The Mechanics, and the Wes Minster Five are just a few of the many groups who commonly used sessionists to perform their lead vocals.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


Hello, Martin IIIa and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking Insert-signature.png if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! KennethSides (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Wow, is this ever belated! Appreciated, though. I've already at least perused most of the articles linked above, but it is nice to have them in a handy table for easy reference.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


Some nice tidying up there, cheers. MrMarmite (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, man!--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Supertramp[edit]

Please stop trying to rig the Hodgson article. It's a fan-given nickname, as many fans see him as the man who defined Supertramp. There's a reputable cite to support it, and Hodgson himself has posted a newspaper article to his own website where he is referred to as Mr. Supertramp ( I understand that you're passionate about the band, but don't let your bias get in the way of things. (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me give you the straight deal: The "Mr. Supertramp" deal has proven controversial on Wikipedia. Some editors want to attribute it to one reason, some want to attribute it to another, some don't want the name mentioned in the article at all, and since neither of the cited sources provide a reason, no side holds a reasonable advantage. Right now I'm the only one upkeeping the Supertramp articles, so it's up to me to deal with this nonsense every time it crops up. And frankly, I'm not good at dispute moderation, and have much more productive things to do with my time on Wikipedia than settle trivial arguments. So the most sensible thing to do, until we get a source that actually identifies the reason for the nickname, is to leave it out; people can't argue over the reason behind the name if they don't see it in the article. Moreover, it's a sensible resolution even aside from the dispute, since without a reason behind it, all "Mr. Supertramp" is is a nickname that, if used in a newspaper article, wouldn't be recognized by the overwhelming majority of readers. The WP article on Paul McCartney himself doesn't even mention the nickname "Macca" anywhere, much less in the lead section. The "Mr. Supertramp" name by itself simply isn't worth starting a massive dispute over.
Also, I'd see about curing your knee-jerk reaction to accuse anyone who disputes your edits of being biased and "trying to rig the article". Besides being blatantly contrary to one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, it makes you look incredibly suspicious.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Phil Collins. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Srobak (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of this, since I do provide edit summaries whenever my intentions are less than blindingly obvious. I can only guess that the above was posted by mistake.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

March 2012[edit]

Thanks for your help editing Brain Salad Surgery; I'll use the quoting format you noted from now on.

Steely Dan[edit]

Good work on the Steely Dan article trim, it needed that. The only deletion that you made that I would contend is the info surrounding the loss of "The Second Arrangement", which I think is important to mention in describing the frustrating recording process surrounding Gaucho. If you don't object, I will reinstate that. Cheers, CCS81 (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! As far as "The Second Arrangment", I see your point. However, I think that paragraph as written wasn't clearly making the point that you describe, and went on for too long about a song that was never even released. I just trimmed the same info on the Gaucho article, since it devoted a whole sentence to explaining who told Fagen something, and another sentence to describing the same reaction that anyone would have assumed he'd have. It also contradicts itself by saying it was the first track finished, and then going on to say it was never finished at all. So I'd shorten it up to more of a summary of the incident when you reinstate it.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good. I will see if I can get the job done in a sentence, two tops. Cheers, CCS81 (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Iron Butterfly[edit]

Hi. I saw your posts on a discussion page. I have added this link to the Bestselling albums discussion page, as well as the discussion page of a frequent editor there(it's locked), but both have been ignored. [1]. (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been looking over the article in question and its talk page, but I'm still a bit confused. What exactly do you want me to do?--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. The article List of bestselling albums lists the album as "25 million" copies sold. The link listed here is a WP:RS, which states "30 million" copies sold. Thus, using this WP:RS the album in question could be moved up the list to the 30 million mark. (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"Removed review material"[edit]

Would you please explain what the edit summary "Removed review material" is about? You are removing sourced, cited material about the song's sound and thematic content, which is the main subject of an article about the song. All else - the chart rankings, the versions by other artists, etc., is secondary to the actual description of the song and its original recording. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As examples of Featured Articles - heavily reviewed and considered the best of the best - about songs, look at Like a Rolling Stone, Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It), and Hey Jude, just to pick three. All contain extensive sections - much longer than in the Animals songs you are deleting material from - that describe the musical content and lyrical themes and recorded performances of the songs. So again, what does "review material" mean to you? Wasted Time R (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Statements like "As laid down "It's My Life" was a natural fit for the Animals." aren't describing the song's sound or thematic content; they're subjectively commenting on the song's quality. The fact that someone made such subjective commentary is verifiable, but not the subjective commentary itself, so sticking references in front of such statements doesn't help. You'd do well to refer to your own examples. I haven't looked much at the other two, but Hey Jude is a good example of how an encyclopedia article should discuss a song's content. Note that its statements are all precise and indisputable, whereas the statements I removed from It's My Life (The Animals song) are vague and sometimes aggrandizing.
Hope that helps. By the way, I'd be wary of assuming that anything in a Featured Article is considered exemplary content. Articles aren't continuously reassessed, and an article may not be reviewed for five years or more after being given Featured Article status. Even assuming content hasn't deprecated in that time, standards for Featured Articles were a lot lower in 2007 than they are today. I've seen content that was given FA status which wouldn't have even passed B-class standards today.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I realize that different editors on music articles have different ideas of where the objective/subjective line is; mine is a bit more liberal than yours. But I have rewritten the main part of the text you removed. All subjective evaluations are now attributed in-text, while what remains is objective fact ("The Animals recording was propelled by a bass guitar riff from Chas Chandler, soon joined by an electric twelve-string guitar riff from Hilton Valentine", "lead singer Eric Burdon's low-pitched, gruff vocal", etc). See what you think. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

User page, so very, very red[edit]

Hi, you do a lot of work on musical articles which matter very much to me personally.
Could you possibly create a user page? Pretty please?
Sincerely, User:Varlaam (blocked). (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Maximum Surge[edit]

Just so you'll know the next time... It's best to tag dead links with the {{dead link}} tag rather than remove them. We have many users and bots who can often find archived copies of the pages in question. Stay well, and happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I had no idea WP had bots that could do that. One more useful tool for my editing kit! :) --Martin IIIa (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You're most certainly welcome Martin Face-smile.svg. Thanks to the archiving services, we don't always have to lose our valuable references once the source is no longer available. A very genius idea indeed! All the best,  -- WikHead (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Foxtrot (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miniature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Pamela (song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tom Scott
Stop Loving You (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tom Scott

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking care of the vandalism.[edit]

Those edits that you reverted are people editing in a public building's IP. I promise I will take care of it and notify someone in the area about it. (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutral notice[edit]

A Request for Comment has been called at Talk:Watchmen. As a registered editor who has edited that page over the past year, you may wish to comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited When I'm Dead and Gone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom McGuiness (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Rites of Passage (Roger Hodgson album): Difference between revisions[edit]

Hi. The Allmusic review may have had no text, but did have an editor's rating, which is better than nothing. Forgive me, but is there a policy that Allmusic editor's ratings are not to be listed without a text review? Thanks. Tinman44 (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is. In the first paragraph of the template documentation (see Template:Album ratings), it says 'The template is not to be a substitute for a section in paragraph form, since a review can not be accurately boiled down to a simple rating out of five stars, or a phrase like "unfavorable".' Basically, the album ratings box is supposed to merely summarize info which is stated in more detailed prose, much like the infobox. Hope that helps; it's always flattering when someone asks me a question on Wikipedia.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

re: Jack Sebastian[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Martin IIIa. You have new messages at NukeofEarl's talk page.
Message added 15:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

September 2013[edit]

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Crime of the Century (album). Please use a source to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't know what Dan56 hopes to accomplish by posting accusations to my talk page. Anyone who checks the article history is going to see not only that the accusations are completely false, but also that Dan56 has been edit warring on the article and outright refusing to use the article's talk page.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


Can you type up the section in the article you've cited at Sega Genesis about the CDX? The reason I ask is this: The article doesn't mention price drops or the price of either system at the time, so this would be contextually relevant information in the CDX section. As of right now, I believe it causes a little confusion, and it even lost me for a minute. I had not even heard that the Sega CD had ever been at $229; I knew of its launch price and had heard from an unreliable source of a cut to $150 in 1995, but never a $229 price point, and it's not cited in either article, either. I don't doubt that you have the correct information; Allgame backs up the source used as well. Thank you, Red Phoenix let's talk... 14:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

My info on pricing for the Genesis and Sega CD didn't come from the article; it came from retailer price listings elsewhere in the magazine. Sorry, I thought I had made that clear in my original edit summary, and rereading it now I see that I did not. Now, I realize that retailers don't always follow official price points, but there are listings for two different retailers and they both show $229 for the Sega CD, and their prices for the Genesis differ by only $5. In addition, one of them already lists the CDX for sale, and they use the official $399 price point. All that said, I realize that this is not the same as a reliable source stating that the Sega CD's price dropped to $229 in (say) November 1993, and in retrospect I was probably too hasty to change the statement to "(more than the individual Genesis and Sega CD units put together)". Maybe we should just delete the price comparison altogether until we get something rock solid on what the prices of the Genesis and Sega CD were at that point. I don't know if you've noticed, but I've been going through mid-1990s gaming magazines for info, so I'm bound to stumble on an actual news article on the Sega CD price drop at some point.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, there is WP:NOPRICE, but at the same time it appears that this seems to confirm it, and that article is used in the sourcing already, which makes me wonder how the old wording got there in the first place. I would be willing to bet it was less than the launch price of both, but I think having those price points would provide good context for that statement, which has some further backing. Perhaps it's something to keep our eyes peeled for; it would be good support if it can be found. Red Phoenix let's talk... 19:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I found it! The price drop was part of the repackaging with Sewer Shark. I'll add that info to the Sega CD article first, then take a shot at working it in to the Genesis article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Reception additions[edit]

Noticed that you've been mass-adding reception details to video game articles. This kind of work is incredibly valuable to WPVG, and I thought I'd let you know that someone appreciated it. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Filling in that info really is very satisfying, but it's hard work too, so it's great to know that it's appreciated.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
I happened upon your edits whereby you added a ton of reception information. I see that you are slaying some WP:OR and WP:FANCRUFT as a bonus. I see that someone else already noted this above, but I just had to say I'm impressed. And I'm just as impressed at the number of game magazines you apparently have. Where'd you get them? I do that kind of thing but probably not quite that much of it, so I know how in-depth it can be. Good jerb. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Meant to reply to this earlier... I already contacted you on your talk page, but thanks. Most of the game magazines I actually accessed through scans that folks have uploaded online, though I have my own hard copies of a few issues.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Shock Wave[edit]

That was a RIDICULOUS merge. Particularly because the space shooter is far more famous than the puzzle. --Stormwatch (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you say, troll.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The games are completely unrelated, and the shooter is far better known. Stop your nonsense! --Stormwatch (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Maximum Magazine[edit]

Hi Martin IIIa. Sorry about the slow response to your question at WP:VG/RS. I just replied there to say I think it's an RS. Oh and I reiterate what those above have said about adding sourced reception details to articles. Very good work! -Thibbs (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually wasn't holding out much hope for a response to that particular question, since it's a relatively obscure magazine and there's no website for people to check out, so any response is much appreciated.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Jurassic Park SNES[edit]

An anonymous user edited the page for Jurassic Park (SNES video game) [[2]] on February 5 and added the following to the reception area: The game is critisied for not having any save features. I was wondering if this is actually supported by the reference you provided on October 10, 2014. Thank you. 2602:306:80E5:6970:4560:FD3C:3E41:6E82 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly. One of their four reviewers says "It also needs a password feature or something." My practice is to disregard any opinions voiced by only one of EGM's reviewers, since unless we transcribe everything in gaming reviews (which would make the Reception section very bloated), that would be giving that opinion undue weight. Also, the edit's use of WP:Weasel words ("The game is criticized for") suggests to me that the editor wasn't actually trying to attribute that criticism to EGM; they just didn't realize they were putting their edit in front of a footnote. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

re: GamePro 1.0 review[edit]

I don't have that magazine any more, so I can't verify. I would imagine it meant Panic! one of only 12 games to get a 1.0 or lower in any category, but I don't know for sure. Feel free to change it --Surachit (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Shock Wave + Assault[edit]

I must insist, that's an absurd merge. Shock Wave Assault is just the expanded version of Shock Wave. Your move is like merging Street Fighter II into the page for Street Fighter II Turbo. Which is the opposite of what any reasonable person would do. --Stormwatch (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You seem to lack knowledge of the guidelines which Wikipedia uses to determine which title an article appears at. Which title goes with the expanded version has nothing to do with the matter. In any case, the consensus was to move the article to Shockwave Assault.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
A total absence of replies does not make a "consensus". More likely no one even saw your demented proposal before you made the illogical move. --Stormwatch (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Not likely at all, given that I posted the appropriate tags on both pages and requested input from WikiProject Video Games.--Martin IIIa (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I was forced to report you again. Cease your tomfoolery! --Stormwatch (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Why can't you understand that you are doing the opposite of the logical move?! --Stormwatch (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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.

A barnstar for you![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
Long overdue—thank you for your diligent addition of otherwise hard-to-find print sources for video games. I hope you know that you're doing excellent work, but here's a reminder anyway. – czar 06:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

SNK characters[edit]

Hello. I was wondering if in the reviews you have from Neo Geo there are comments about certain characters from Fatal Fury, Art of Fighting or The King of Fighters (For example, "This boss is too overpowered or this one is good to control"). It would really helpful to expand their reception. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; I've been on a short Wikibreak. Unfortunately the reviews I've seen tend not to comment on specific characters much, but I do recall there being considerable commentary on Blue Mary and Bob Wilson when they were introduced. And of course Mai S. gets frequent mention. I'll have a quick look and see what I can dig up.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Also, good work with Blue Mary.Tintor2 (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The kitten of DILIGENCE[edit]

Iris cat.jpg

Here is yet another award for those dang beautiful classic print citations. Every time I see your username on an edit summary, I get all excited -- but I quell it! Because I think "hey, this guy can't nail it every time....can he? Give the guy a break, OKAY?!!"

NOPE. CHUCK TESTA. Success kid. Nailed it.

It's usually a simple but well written statement like a sentence, but that citation is RS (rock solid) and perfectly formatted. Future generations can take that ball and run with it. Martin does it again.

Please let me know if I can help.

And please feed and care for and raise this virtual baby feline for all its days for some reason.

Smuckola(talk) 03:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Heart of Darkness Reviews[edit]

You cut something on the page and said there needs to be a source for reviews. What kind of reviews will do? I have a list of pretty much every review the game has ever gotten but am still very new to how wikipedia works in regards to proper sources and relevant information. I assumed that showing the game ranking percentages at the 70-80 range would justify the term "mixed to positive" but would citing some other reviews like the IGN one for the Playstation version and the Just Adventure one for the PC version be better? Also, as I have taken interest on this page, is there anything else that could be improved on it that I could do? Luxguin (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources is a very good guide to determining notable/reliable review sources for video game articles. The section "Reliable sources" is especially helpful, as it contains a list of all the sources that the editors of WikiProject Video Games have determined by consensus to be reliable. Like the page says, "This list is neither complete nor can it be used as definitive proof regarding a listed source's reliability determination, but it provides a good rough guide on which to base the scrutiny of sources for reliability." And long-running printed review publications like GamePro can generally be assumed to be reliable.
There are a couple problems with making generalized statements based solely on score aggregates. One is that an aggregate is merely an average of scores, not a summary of the corresponding reviews. Reviews are often at odds with their accompanying scores, and averages don't give a breakdown; a game which received 5/10 from four publications and 9/10 from four publications would get the same aggregate score as a game which received 7/10 from eight publications. Also, aggregates assume that one publication's 6/10 is the same as another publication's 6/10, a third publication's 3 out of 5 stars, and a fourth's 60%, which is rarely the case. The second problem is that it's redundant; letting the aggregate score speak for itself and allowing the reader decide whether it means positive reviews or not is both more concise and more neutral than telling the reader what they should think of the aggregate score.
Adding info on the IGN and Just Adventure reviews would definitely improve the article, yes. Pilotwings 64, which has a Good Article rating, makes a nice guideline for what the "Reception" section for a video game article should look like. Info on Heart of Darkness's sales is much needed, too.
At a glance, the one other thing about the article that strikes me as needing improvement is that the plot summary could use trimming. It's recommended that video game plot summaries run no longer than 700 words, while the current plot summary for Heart of Darkness is nearly 900 words.
Also, though I know I've said a fair amount here, don't look to just me for advice. Try posting at places like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you for your help. I have been meaning to make altercations to the plot summary on the page by condensing it more. I do own multiple magazines and have access to archived website reviewers that I can source for reviews. You mention Gamepro which had a feature in a 98 edition of the magazine. There's not much information on the game's sales except what can be infered. For instance, in the UK it got a platinum release which means it sold more than a million copies. There was also an interview where one developer was asked if it sold poorly and he pretty much said "no because look at all the money we got." I haven't found anywhere that lists the actual statistics for how many copies sold. I can understand what you mean about the score summary thing now. It's added percentages, they can be added up from a variety of different ways. I'll definitely be looking into this further. Thank you for your help.Luxguin (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, you will see a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)


Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! ...especially when removing over 500 bytes (as you did on The Incredible Hulk (1982 TV series)). --Musdan77 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of the bytes I removed from the article were either unsourced and obviously trivial minutia or needless repetition of the same information. I used to put edit summaries on everything I did, but five years of Wikipedia editing taught me that putting edit summaries on edits whose purpose is self-evident tends to attract trolls, can needlessly inflame edit conflicts, and at best is a waste of time.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
How is it "self-evident"? When I look at my watchlist, two of the first things I look at are in red ("red flags"): red usernames and bold red numbers. Then if there's no edit summary, that's even more of a reason to look at to the diff. But, if you gave a reason (or reasons) for the edit, I wouldn't have had to click to see it. So, it's a waste of others time not to use one. As far as I see, providing an ES is much more helpful than it could be harmful. But, thanks for your response anyway. Oh, by the way, most editors no longer use the "talkback" (because that's a waste of time). Instead, we now use the [[User:|]] template in the reply, so we can go directly to the post. —Musdan77 (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Reading edit summaries and byte counts is not a substitute for checking the diff. Editors commonly try to hide controversial and/or nonconstructive edits by flat-out lying in the edit summaries. Even editors acting in good faith typically do not give comprehensive descriptions of their edits in the edit summary, especially not when performing a complete overhaul of an article. And the byte count is no indication of an edit's quality at all; replacing 10,000 bytes of fancruft and POV ranting with sourced material gives a byte count of about -9,000, while inserting the words "screw you" gives a byte count of +9.
I don't see how the user link template can possibly be used as a substitute for the talkback template, and upon looking in your user talk edits to see what exactly you were doing, I found that you yourself used the talkback template just a little over two weeks ago.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Martin, why do you think that the number of bytes over 500 are in bold? It's because it's a "red flag", and so it can be seen easily. An editor who may not have that many articles on their watchlist could check every change made, but a busy editor, like me, who has hundreds on his watchlist in a 24-hour period doesn't possibly have the time to do that, so I have to be selective. And I assume (good faith) that an editor who has been around for awhile and gives an ES, made an adequate edit. Please see WP:FIES, which says in part: "Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether it is worthwhile for them to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it. When a major edit (e.g. deletion of a substantial amount of text, a significant addition, or a substantial rewrite) doesn't have an edit summary, there are fewer reasons to assume good faith and busy editors may be more inclined to revert the change without checking it in detail." Also, major changes (say, over 2,000 bytes) really should usually be discussed on the article's talk page before making the changes.
The "user link template" is very helpful for the person you're replying to. They get a notification at the top of the page (the bell), they click on it and it takes them straight to the post. With the "talkback", the person has to go to their talk page and then to the reply. The only time I use TB now is when replying to an unregistered IP, because I don't think they get a notification (though I could be wrong about that), and I want to make sure they know that I replied. —Musdan77 (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
That Wikipedia "red flags" edits based solely on their net byte count doesn't mean that net byte count is a good indicator of an edit's quality (re-read my last post). If you don't have time to properly monitor your watchlist, I recommend not monitoring it at all. I stopped regularly monitoring my watchlist years ago, and ever since I've been a much more productive and far less stressed out editor. I can always review all the edits since my last visit whenever I go to an article (using the "cur" link). Among other benefits, this ensures I don't become a revert monster who looks with suspicion on every edit to an article while not making any constructive edits to it myself. Indeed, your claim that major edits must be discussed on the talk page first strongly suggests that you're suffering this same ailment. Discussion is for edits that are controversial, not for every edit that makes a significant change. You need to read about the WP: BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
Do you have any proof that the user link template does what you think it does? The feature you're talking about is not mentioned in the template documentation, and I have never received a reply notification for anything that wasn't posted on my own talk page. I suspect you're simply trying to have some fun at my expense, but just in case, I'll throw the template up here: Musdan77 Now at least you'll know if the template does what you say it does.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I can say that I haven't already. But to respond, I don't really get stressed out much, except maybe when an editor doesn't follow basic WP editing guidelines and then makes lame excuses why he doesn't.[sarcasm] Anyway, I did not say that major edits must be discussed. BRD (which isn't actually a WP guideline) is good most of the time, but an article talk page is not just to discuss changes that have already been made. An edit as big as -4,000 is in itself questionable, and the bigger the change, most likely the more explanation it needs, and the ES may not be enough space to explain it all, so it's a good idea to explain it fully on the talk page -- especially if you think it might be reverted (even just a part of it). And you seriously think that an editor that's much more experienced than you wouldn't have read WP:BRD? Please don't insult me like that.
Of course it works! I wouldn't have said so much about it if I didn't know if it works. Now if you want proof, I'll give a message to you on my talk page. See you there. —Musdan77 (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
If you insist on acknowledging only WP guidelines, try Wikipedia:Be bold. I referenced BRD only because it's a more detailed explanation of the fact that editing without discussing first works, and is much more efficient than making talk page posts that no one is likely to respond to in order to get permission for edits that wouldn't have been challenged anyway. I did not think my edit to the article might be reverted; I don't know where you got that idea. Boasting that you are "much more experienced than you" just comes off as silly, especially after you've spent much of this discussion touting the same ideas I had nearly ten years ago, before I learned how Wikipedia works.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"I did not think my edit to the article might be reverted." I didn't say you did. I put an emphasis on "might" - in an incidental added comment. Ten years? I guess you're talking about that you edited years before you registered. You might want to say that on your user page. And in case you don't know, I replied on my talk page.

Musdan77, I'm not concerned with anyone knowing how long I've been editing. As heavily implied in my previous post, seniority gives no additional credibility on Wikipedia (and in general, seniority is meaningless unless you've learned from your experiences). Anyway, it's apparent by now that you're not giving due consideration to anything I'm saying, and I've spent an undue amount of time on this as it is. To resist my compulsive habit of replying to everything, I will leave any further posts on this thread unread.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, first of all, thanks for "pinging". And as for the rest, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I won't admonish you anymore. :) —Musdan77 (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)