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 successful system of the 1980s to a few articles. but 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.

Please stop undoing article cleanup just to push your ridiculous agenda. Frankly I don't care one way or another about any home system, they are all irrelevant now as PCs won that battle 25 years ago. The primary problems I see are: 1) you personally like the Spectrum / Sinclair and want to increase its profile and 2) you want to add subjective text to the articles. Reviews are the opinion of the reviewer and thus inherently POV. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and should give factual information about topics NOT someone's opinions about the topics. Asmpgmr (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong on both counts. (1) Every addition I've made today has been about a Commodore or Sega system. (2) I've not added any "subjective text". I've mostly just added scores and awards, with the occasional review summary. How do you propose we add a "reception" section without this?! Read what bridies said above - he wants MORE text instead of just numbers. These additions are importamnt in understanding the context of a game, especially an older one where sales figures are not available. You're clearly out of your depth. Just leave it be.

Reviews are subjective. What score some reviewer gave a game or what some reviewer thinks about a game is completely irrelevant to the facts about the game. As for saying I'm out of my depth, that is a personal attack. Anyway I'm a software engineer and I've worked in the video game industry so I'm guessing that it's you and the other annoying user who is out of their depth. Asmpgmr (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No it's not a personal attack. It's the objective truth. You clearly have very little understanding of how Wikipedia is intended to work. You seem to suffer under the delusion that how much time you spent as a software engineer has even the most remote bearing on the consensus-based rules of editing that have developed here at Wikipedia over the last several years while you weren't actively editing. You are treating this as your own personal project and you are ignoring the community viewpoint. That's really not acceptable behavior even if you have admirable intentions. The ends do not justify the means here. It doesn't matter how brilliant you consider yourself, this is a collaborative enterprise - not a forum for cranky senior engineers to try to bully and impress others with their disregard for their fellow editors. If you can't handle working with your fellow editors then this probably isn't the right place for you to be spending your time. -Thibbs (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

86.175.34.86, for reference, you can find an interesting demonstration of the total lack of support for Asmpgmr's curious views on reception sections here. Asmpgmr was of course invited to participate in this discussion but apparently he had better things to do with his time than engage in consensus-building. -Thibbs (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

Well, he's very clearly against the Spectrum, presumaby because it waters down the significance of the Nintendo. In most cases, I have only included the 3 most important Spectrum scores, generally with 2 or 3 other non-spectrum scores. However, I have just put in even more balance by including a load of Amiga and Atari ST reviews. If that doesn't keep him happy, nothing will. I have no further interest in a compromise. It's not my fault that this system gets more coverage than anything else in the era. Maybe he should concentrate more on finding additional sources to reduce what he sees as imbalance?

To use the Gauntlet example again, he leaves in place the whole section about "The Deeper Dungeons". This was an expansion pack for the home computers, and would make no sense at all to a reader without knowledge of the home conversions.

If he is under too much stress lately, then maybe he should take a break from editing?

OK fair enough. I have also been on the hunt for more sources to cover these games and to reduce the perception of bias that Asmpgmr is sensing. Another editor just sent me a good source for Gauntlet II which is from a German magazine and I think this is another important area to reduce POV - by including different international perceptions. I've requested help from a few other editors too who may have access to more reviews for these games. Hopefully you are right that rather than cutting down the coverage we can expand the coverage of the other versions to satisfy Asmpgmr's POV concerns, but I suspect what he is really interested in is coverage of the original arcade machine. He seems to know a lot about arcade machines so I have some hope he might be able to track down some refs for the original version if he put some effort to it. Anyway thanks for hearing me out. I'll keep my eye on the situation here. -Thibbs (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree we need coverage of all formats and all countries. We certainly don't want an American bias, which is all too common on here. It's as though anything Japanese or European doesn't exist when you read some historical articles. And even with some new ones. I remember having a big argument over at Gran Turismo 5 bcause I wanted to include PSDREi, but somebody disagreed because "it was only a German magazine". Similar with Consoles+ (French magazine) and their coverage of Street Fighter IV.

For the record I don't care for Nintendo systems at all, stop making assumptions about me. Asmpgmr (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep wrecking the Gauntlet article ? The section organization that you keep putting back is not logical. 'Others' is its own section (with PC Version under that) instead of being under Ports (which should probably be called Home conversions). All this so you can keep pushing that one specific port was ranked number one by some magazine and a bunch of review scores. Many of these articles need cleanup and this constant adding of subjective text really isn't helping. Asmpgmr (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Um... How can I put this without sounding patronising? I was putting the article into chronological order. The Megadrive version was released in the 1990s, which comes after the 1980s. You see? The PC version only seems notable for the big, so that's last. What's the big deal? actually, no, don't answer that.

Did you bother to look at the section headings ? Do you have any clue beyond your zeal for subjective text ? Now I have to fix this yet again. Asmpgmr (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

---