User talk:86.175.34.86

Although I agree with you that the Templeton Prize should not be in year articles, such as 1980, there seems to be a consensus that it should be. Please restore the sections, and bring up the matter in the appropriate forum, probably WT:YEARS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Hello, I'm CalendarWatcher. I noticed that you recently removed some content from 1980 without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. The removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. I have restored them. CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

And yet you left the Right Livelihood Awards intact. Funny that. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

And I notice that you've made no attempt other than whingeing on my talk page to make any sort of arguments in the proper venues. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

And speaking of whinging: what do Alexa rankings--which are supposedly measuring the popularity of WEB SITES--have to do with the 'popularity' of awards? The answer, to save you the trouble, is 'nothing what-so-ever'. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

In other words, the connection between the prestige/importance/impact of an award is directly correlated with an unreliable ranking of its official web site? I'd call that 'original research' but that would be a mis-use of the term 'research'.

Hello, I'm DaL33T. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions to 1999 because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! There is such a thing as the Templeton Prize by the way. DaL33T (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Year articles

>The default position is that it should not be included on a page like this. If you want to forward your agenda, it's up to you to prove notability.

No, you have it backwards. The default position is, by definition, what is. You are attempting to change things, which is NOT the default. If you want to change things, you'll have to make at least a token attempt to justify said changes other than using irrelevancies about Web access statistics.

And as for agendas, the only one I see is someone who has decided on his own that an internationally recognised award is beneath the notice of Wikipedia--or, more accurately it would appear he does not WANT it to be noticed by Wikipedia. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Templeton Prize doesn't merit attention but the 'Your Sinclair Readers' Top 100 Games of All Time' does? You certainly have a peculiar standard for importance. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll deal with this one here (the rest is over on your talk page for obvious reasons).

Fundamental distinction: "merit attention" <> "should be included on a year page". A game/album/film/book that gets voted the best game/album/film/book of all time is an important fact for that piece of media, and should rightly be included on the page for that game/album/film/book. However, in the context of a particular year in world history, it is not worthy of being included. You get the difference now? Please tell me that I have made it clear enough.

Citations

Hey, I appreciate the addition of cites to old, hard to find magazines. But: it would also be appreciated if you looked at the citation style used in an article, and used that same style, as well as adding page numbers. Also, if you get time to add more real commentary from the magazines, rather than just scores, that'd be great. Thanks, bridies (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, please do use the citation style already used in an article. Thanks, bridies (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Magazine Awards and the Reference Library

I spotted your edit at Ranger-X. I think that the score is useful, but the awards section of the table is reserved for industry awards like the BAFTAs or GDC awards, not magazine scores. I assume that the MegaTech hyper award is just one given out to games scoring 90%+, like Nintendo Magazine System's "Seal of Quality" for example. So it doesn't provide any information that the score does not. It would be useful to add author, date and page numbers to your citations, especially if you have access to the source.

Also, consider creating an account. Your print sources could be very useful for other editors, and if you're willing to share them - consider listing them at WP:VG/RL. That's the Video Games project reference library, where users index the print sources they have so others can use them. I admit that it's underutilised, but others do find it useful from time to time. Wikiproject Video Games would definitely welcome your input. - hahnchen 14:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at 1988, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Apparently you have no understanding of the meaning of the word 'default'. I suggest a good dictionary. CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

ZX Spectrum / Sinclair biased editing

Please stop your constant editing of various video game related articles to push a ZX Spectrum / Sinclair bias. Based upon comments here on your talk page and your edit history it appears you have been doing this quite a lot and you are also reverting article cleanup and the addition of links which is definitely not a good idea. Mentioning that a game was ported to this platform is certainly OK but adding subjective text to numerous articles to seemingly increase the significance of any particular system just because you like it is definitely pushing a personal agenda or point of view and is not good here. Please refrain from this activity in the future. Asmpgmr (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I have no idea what you are on about. I've added review scores for the most successfull system of the 1980s to a few articles. biut I've been doing the same for the Megadrive, the Amiga, the PlayStation, the PS2 and PS3. certainly the majority of my 500 edits in the last couple of weeks have been for Sega systems. In the most recent case (Gauntlet), these 2 Spectrum scores are in among a total of about 10, covering at least 5 systems. There is certainly no bias, and no subjective text. And I've definitely never deleted anything. I'm just about to go off and reinstate my information. Please quit the reverts.

Reception material

Hello, 86.175.34.86,

I notice that you have recently been reverting back and forth with Asmpgmr over the reception section of a number of arcade game articles. Although I don't think Asmpgmr is explaining himself very well I think his main concern is that in some cases the amount of coverage of a system like the ZX Spectrum can overwhelm the other reviews and can appear to give the article an undue emphasis on the Spectrum. Asmpgmr is very clearly in the wrong when he blanks entire reception sections, but he seems to be under a great deal of stress these days and I think it would be best for our purposes if we tried to offer him a compromise of some sort. The reception section will need to be restored to these articles of course, but can you think of a good way to limit the number of Spectrum sources to just the most notable and significant? I've actually started a thread about this topic here (link) if you are interested. I'm hoping that by offering a compromise to Asmpgmr, he might calm down enough for us to actually start improving these articles again. Any thoughts on the matter? -Thibbs (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

PS - Thank you for providing these sources, by the way. I do appreciate the effort you are making to expand these articles. -Thibbs (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)