User talk:Wgungfu/archive 3

Doug Enngelbart

Hello! Sorry to bother you! I have a friend who is having problems adding facts to his own Wiki. Since you reviewed the facts he wished to add, I am addressing this letter to you.

Doug Engelbart, generally credited as co-inventor of the computer mouse, and his wife Karen O'Leary Engelbart wish to update the Wiki with the news of their marriage. When they (editing as user Engeleary) updated Doug's page with this info, you marked it as needing citation, which seems fair. You also marked it as a possible conflict of interest, which I'm a little confused about, but okay.

The information was then removed from the page altogether by an unknown user with the IP address 97.73.64.141.

Doug and Karen, who currently attend church with me and my parents, and frequently eat Sunday lunch with us, have expressed their concern that Doug's children, who opposed the marriage, are trying to keep it off Wiki out of spite. I and my parents were present at the in-house wedding, at which I sang, my dad videotaped, and my pastor officiated. It definitely happened and was 100% legal. But Doug and Karen are not 100% familiar with the way Wikipedia operates, which leaves them confused as to how to make the edit as permanent or as clearly factual as possible.

So I am writing to ask how to properly cite their wedding. I don't think marriage licenses are generally available for public perusal online, and it was a very private and rather recent wedding. How would you suggest Doug and Karen go about verifying it for Wikipedia? Because of Doug's connection with developing hypertext, they feel like Wikipedia should be a great place for him to share facts about his life, but at the moment it seems to them a daunting task.

Thanks for your time! Galatea statue (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Galatea_statue Thanks very much, that was very helpful information, I will pass it along to Doug and Karen! Galatea statue (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Before Pong...

Hey, I know you wanted to get started on Pong, but while researching the game, I stumbled across some sources for Marble Madness. I wrote a draft in notepad and was hoping you could take a look at it after I updated the article sometime tomorrow. I figured while it was at GAN and hopefully FAC, we could start working on Pong. What do think? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC))

I'm not sure what you're asking? You want to work on Marble Madness before Pong? Or you are planning to rewrite some of Marble Madness around some resources you found and want to take a look at that before moving on to Pong? Or both? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess to answer your question, both. I did a rewrite of Marble Madness—everything but the lead has been redone. I was hoping you could look it over and check for any inconsistencies and what not. Then we start working on Pong while Marble Madness is going through GAN and FAC. I figured we could knock out Marble Madness quickly and then tackle the harder article, Pong. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 12:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

Started up a discussion area on the Marble Madness talk page then. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I put Marble Madness up for GAN. We should start another discussion on the Pong talk page some time today. I've been going over the article and have some thoughts on it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

FYI- Pong discussion started. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

FYI- Marble Madness FAC. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

Pole Position

I noticed that you removed the clarify tag I had on Pole Position. The sentence as it's worded doesn't seem self-explanatory to me. It makes sense that Namco offered Midway a choice of two games, and Midway chose Mappy, while Atari ended up with Pole Position. My question is how was Atari "forced" to take Pole Position? Did they have some contractual agreement with Namco that they would take whichever game Midway declined?

I'm not planning to revert or re-add the tag, but I just wanted to find out what the story was behind that line. Thanks. Kcowolf (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If there's only 2 games, and one is already chosen by Midway, then they're forced to take the other one. Its simple math. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Dungeon Master revert

Hello, i saw you reverted the overview of the magic and character system of dungeon master (game) with the reason 'game guide' stuff, which is in principle true. So why i think this stuff should be inside this article? because it was an breaktrough game (see awards and links) and defineded a complete new genre, therefore i think some introduction in the new developed magic and character developing system should be inside an encyclopedic article. Greetings from an IP and waiting for your opinion 141.52.232.84 (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason why the article was just delted, and all the policies it violates were given on that deletion discussion page. Trying to copy the info over to another page because you feel it should exist is looked down on as disruptive editing. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about the "spell page" discussion... my understanding of that discussion was that an own "spell" page is to much for that (small) topic, which i easily can agree. but just removing all of this information for an groundbreaking game of the eighthies without even cleaning up the article (the deleters werent even not ambitious enough to clean up the now destroyed references :/), is something dungeon master is not deserving. So i tried to integrate some of the major stuff into the main article.

And, like i said before, it was genere defining game with a complete new architecture. greetings 141.52.232.84 (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And like I'll say again, it was deleted for very specific reasons, which were clearly stated on the deletion page. It had nothing to do with being to small, the reasons were/are clearly stated and they included WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE for including unnecessary detail about gameplay, which is clarified in WP:GAMECRUFT. You, taking the same unnecessary content that was just deleted for those reasons and trying to put it in to the main article is seen as trying to circumvent the deletion process, which was achieved by consensus. That kind of information is not welcome on Wikipedia, as we have clear policies on descriptive game guide material here, and the viewpoint if it being unencyclopedic. I'm sure there's plenty of fan sites with that material that people can google for, but Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a fan site or a game guide. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, i'm not convinced (especially not by excessive referencing formalistic rules, because these rules are only hints which have to be discussed, especially because of WP:Be_Bold), but i see that deleting and reducing is more fun then extending (and especially IP are treated such bad since some time... i think no new user will ever "enjoy" extending articles from this project and originally the project was invented to be "participated by everyone")... and what makes me also angry, the pure destructive spirit of these inquisitors of wikipedia is seeable in the complete unfixed way they leave such "purified" articles.... (no linkfix, nothing just delete...yeah!) :/ 141.52.232.84 (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Be bold is not a license to go against policy, and I'd suggest reading the rest of the page, including "But not to bold". Likewise, it also specifically states its in regards to fixing problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, etc., and "You'll see. Also, of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally!". The page is meant to encourage people to get involved in the editing process here and not sit on the sidelines, which you are still welcome to do. It is not stating to be bold in relation to go in and add whatever you want to a page regardless of policy, consensus, etc. You took a chance and created an article without being aware of established policy and guidelines here. Nothing wrong with that, it happens every day. But then the normal checks and balances process here kicked in, saw the article and its content violated policy, had a public discussion and vote on it to establish consensus on that fact, and removed the content. That's also standard, and happens every day. Wikipedia has one main goal, to be an encyclopedia and provide encyclopedic content. This does not involve blind extending that just adds more content and do not fall within the scope of Wikipedia, and that's also why other editors will watch articles and edit out such content - all part of the normal process. I think some of the statements you're making about the project and such are coming off as childish. Nobody stated you could no longer edit on Wikipedia or be involved in the video games project, etc. Just that the content you were trying to add in this specific instance does not meet valid criteria for addition. If you did not take the time to familiarize yourself with policy and guidelines before adding material, that blame falls on you. Don't blame and get angry at everyone else for just following established processes here. Now, I really don't feel a need to go around in circles regarding this anymore, I think I've more than explained the situation and pointed you in the direction needed to continue editing at Wikipedia. Any further discussion on this is just a waste of each others time. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

listing under Wing Chun Branches

Sorry, new to this editing stuff.

I removed references to schools and branches. I assume my current listing is ok? (for Tam Hun Fan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranoy (talk • contribs) 05:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My Edit

I had removed that link (on the atari page; "Atari Gaming Headquarters - Atari historical archive site"), as when I clicked on it, the site ran a script (that was blocked, but a little to late) that installed a trojan (that was luckily quarintined shortly after installation). I ran several checks (as I had clicked on several links) but after seeing the same "you need this virus protection software" internet popup, and subsequent quarintines from my virus protection software (three successive times), I felt it was necessary to protect other users from something that could damage their computers. After it being restored (and retesting it for the trojan) I have noticed it does not come up anymore. It seemed too much to just be coincidence. Kaivarri (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Note: A general response would be appreciated. A comment of me being vandal in my talk brands me as a disruptive influense on this site. This I feel is unfair, as I have explained above, I was seeking safety for other users, and had no other reason (or desire) to delete a link to a site. I use this site almost daily, and only wish the information to be true, accurate, and of course not have links to something that could damage a user's computer. Kaivarri (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the link, there is no virus/trojan/etc. warnings. If you edit was in good faith, then its no problem. The fact you're a brand new account and your own contribution had been to remove that link with no mention in the edit summary as to why, set off flags. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It was, I've worked in the IT field, and it was just out of concerns. As you noticed, my account is new, I noticed the edit summary after having done the edit. Like I said, it was too much for me to just say "that's an interesting coincidence". I was looking for a way to report it when you undid it (and so I tested it, about a dozen or so times before I replied to your message). I have not again seen that script (and ran 3 differenct companies virus scans on my computer, gotta love having all that diagnostics software) and it wasn't on my computer. If you have your site hosted on a public server, it could have been infected prior to their virus software catching it. Kaivarri (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to address it as well, I did not add the link to wikipedia in the first place. Because I am co-owner of the site, it would be a conflict of interest, it was added by other editors. But as stated, there were never any scripts there nor have I done anything to the site since you mentioned the issue. Could have been something from the cache of a previous site you visited that was trying to launch when you hit mine (data miner, etc.) If you have any questions on contributing here by the way, feel free to ask and I'll be happy to help. Welcome to Wikipedia. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I had thought of the cache issue, and tested to see if this was the cause, before I made the edit. I throw my hands up in defeat as to how this came about. Again, I appologize of the inconvenience, and now that I have someone to turn to, will definitely contact you if I have any further issues with the site in the future. Kaivarri (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WillOakland / Coleco RFC

Hi Marty. I just wanted to comment a little on the RFC you started in WT:VG. (Don't worry, nothing bad here.) Just noticed that you'd mentioned User:WillOakland as a new user, but it appears he's been contributing under that account since February. (It's not at all clear if he's contributed anonymously or other under accounts before that.) So, at least in my opinion, he's not really a "new" editor anymore. :)

In looking over his Talk page, it looks like this issue of blatant removal of trivia and pop-culture sections in articles has come up a number of times before. I see in the history on Coleco that this person just deleted the section three times, each under a different account/IP (could have just been signed out on a dynamic IP, etc.) before any discussion took place. So this disruptive behavior seems to be a continuation of past behavior, which I find disturbing. I'll keep an eye on the situation and escalate via WP:DR and/or WP:ANI if necessary. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it. As I stated to him directly, I could even see moving those two entries to their respective pages as a form of compromise, but he seems intent on complete removal. Which makes my overall concern that he'll continue the process throughout other video game related articles, regardless of any guidelines we established through consensus here. That's when it'll start deteriorating in to disruptive editing, which is even more of a concern now with the past behavior you uncovered, and why I was so adamant about getting everyone involved now to try and nip it through discussion. I noticed most of his edits have been in regards to pop culture or AFD, so he does come off as an account with an agenda. As far as a "new" guy, no biggie. :) I was considering him new because of the limited amount of edits he's made in the past year and with him using the multiple anonymous IP's. He stated on the talk page he's been around with another account a lot longer, but I have yet to see evidence of that. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that his behavior is generally disruptive and he seems to be following a pattern of "all trivia/pop culture sections must be removed with extreme prejudice", I happen to agree in this particular case that the pop-culture references given in that article aren't really contributing anything of note. I left more specific comments in Talk:Coleco, and I support just axing that section and not moving the content to the other articles at this time. If a pop-culture reference comes along later on that more closely fits the guidelines in terms of significance, we can certainly add it then.

As I said, I'll keep an eye on the situation and will do what I can to try to smooth things out on the interpersonal side of this. I don't agree with Will's methods here. But after I applied a more specific interpretation of the content than he did, I ended up coming to the same conclusion on this article. (User:A Man In Black has already removed the content and given his opinion as well, so he beat me to the punch.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Understood, I just responded on the talk:coleco page as well. I can certainly agree with that, and its a perfect example of why the "Consensus needed" situation was defined in the guidelines. In this case, consensus is being formed against, which in turn solidifies the validity of the guidelines. That's my only real concern in this rather than they just being blindly removed as was happening. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(nod) I think there may have been a little confusion in your response, though. My first reaction to the RFC was that you actively wanted to keep the content, and not so much that you wanted to follow a process to discuss whether the content should be kept. I get the sense that Will may have reacted to you that way as well, and perhaps he might have responded differently if your response to him had been more clear about discussing it first. I still think he was pretty rude to you, but I can see how the topic as a whole might have been a little confusing at first. I hope that the discussion that's occurred since then will clear that up and, again, will get Will back on track. (I also hope that he becomes better aware of the processes we have in place for this, and not that he feels my and AMIB's support of removing the content "vindicates" him or "proves his point".) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I did want to keep it initially based on the state of the discussion at the time. When you reiterated what the needs consensus guidelines stated, I changed my opinion and agreed with you given the reasoning. And Will was not reacting like that for that reason, if you look at his edit and discussion history he simply removed the material over and over calling it crap and stated WP:OR, etc. My concern was that those are not valid reasons to remove it, as their format was following the guidelines. Which is why I kept pointing him towards those guidelines and policies and then finally did the RFC to deal with that issue as well as establish a consensus for or against the content. Two different issues going on and it appears with AMIB's response the guidelines may still be at risk. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I probably misinterpreted, then. Sorry for any confusion. :) Looks like an RFC/U on our friend Will might be in order here, though - I'll start that rolling by giving him a firmer warning on his Talk page. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Coleco

After I suggest that you might here to start drama, you prove me wrong by filing an RFC on me... XD WillOakland (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

An RFC (Request For Comment) is not filed on a person, its filed to gain a consensus on a disagreement. Its not punitive like you're making it out, you're confusing it with an WP:RFCC. And I fail to see what your response here or on Coleco ("Well, I see the drama bus has arrived. WillOakland (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC) ") was meant to attempt other than to goad confrontation and further create concern with other editors and admins on your conduct. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Such as myself. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Trademark is not the same thing as "ownership" of a name

Good catch on the no longer working link, however the other comment sounds a bit confused. You can certainly "own" a name, they're trademarked all the time, such as here. That's usually why you see the little tm signs by game and corporate names in plain text (such as press releases) as well. I work in the industry and deal with this issue all the time. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you know games, but your understanding of trademark law is a little off. A trademark doesn't give ownership to a name, it just grants a semi-exclusive right to the name for certain uses in certain areas to sell certain products. Other companies can use the exact same name for other things in other areas. It's not the name that's owned. The wording in the article was confusing and not accurate about intellectual property law. Worse than that, it wasn't backed up by any reliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, a press release written by a company making a legal claim and then reprinted by a Train Gamer's Association does not count as a reliable source for intellectual property law and the ultimate accuracy of claims of "ownership". DreamGuy (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi Marty, you've asked me a number of times to weigh in on various issues, but unfortunately I've been away from Wikipedia, and I'm no longer as active as I used to be. In the future, if you need the input of an admin, feel free to ask me, but also consider talking to User:David Fuchs. He's a great contributor, and should be able to help you out. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2008-11-23 14:01

No problem. Sometimes I thought of taking extended breaks my self. ;) --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

KGB

I was unaware that they were no longer in business over there. I kind of feel embarassed… MuZemike (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

MARTY I HAVING A ORIGNAL WORKING ATARI VIDEO PONG MADE FOR SEARS MY EMAIL IS JTRINGA@MSN.COM LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY INTEREST

Nintendo

What are you talking about? It is a free license playable interface hosted by the copyright owner Nintendo Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 04:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Nintedo8.com is not affiliated with Nintendo, and clearly states "This page is in no way affiliated or endorsed by Nintendo or Nintendo of America." at the bottom of the page. They, and any parties involved, have no rights to said games, and are trying to get around any legal issues by claiming they only host the emulator and link to the roms (i.e., a link site). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I did not notice that. Pardon me for adding this content there. I thought this was all Nintendo stuff. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 09:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Engelbart

Marty, I am now logged in. I am not interested in an edit war, but please understand that I think it best, under the circumstances, to keep any changes in Dr. Engelbart's personal life off of his page. I have heard many different allegations from many different people, and I think we can all agree that until everything is sorted out, it would be best to keep the page as it has been for quite some time. Please understand. Rubix world (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Marty,

Doug and Karen are married see Facebook site http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=790069898. I also think that it is bad for you to remove Ballard Doug's first wife, she is not shown but was a big part of Doug's life too. Here you hurt everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkeley@gmail.com (talk • contribs) 08:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Facebook is not a valid reference for Wikipedia. Likewise, I did not remove anyone's wife. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed both pictures in the past because this page is supposed to be about Dr. Engelbart. I think mentions are okay, but many pictures clog it up. Ballard was a very large part of Engelbart's life, I do not deny that, and maybe her picture shall be re-added as his career, as I understand it, would be nowhere near what it is now without her. I would still like to remove the current picture of Ms. O'Leary as well, and revert the text back to how it had been for many months, but I am just waiting to come to an agreement with Marty, and other interested parties on this subject. Rubix world (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground between the two of you, and pages are not static. They change, grow, content is added, refined, etc. The photo is certainly permissible, as is personal info about family (though long lists of relatives are not). There is no where near to many photos on the page. The current revision is a cross between both of your edits. I don't see a need for reversion, if anything it needs more expansion and valid, notable sources. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. As I said earlier, I have heard outrageous allegations from so many different people and I think it would be best, at least for the time being, to revert all family edits back to how they were for the greatest amount of time. When everything is sorted out and there are clear answers, then we can edit the page accordingly. Rubix world (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You can state you disagree on what I'm trying to explain to you, but that's irrelevant to how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not a battleground between the two of you, and pages are not static. They change, grow, content is added, refined, etc. The photo is certainly permissible, unless its found to be a copyright violation. The edits by both of you in their current state are valid, and just require citations or alternative sources. Any material that violates guidelines, etc. was already removed from the edits. You don't revert the entire article back to a previous state just because it had been in that way for a certain length of time, or because you disagree with other people's content without providing valid and verifiable alternatives - that's approaching violation of WP:Ownership. And frankly, the two of you going back and forth is also violating WP:Disruptive, and will wind up getting you both blocked. Edits here are reverted for either a) vandalism, b) violating guidelines on content, or possibly in this case c) violating WP:BIO. Otherwise, there's not much more to go around in circles about - myself and another long time contributor here have already weighed in and made edits accordingly regarding it, and so far you don't have the WP:Consensus to do the kind of major edits you're talking about wanting yet. I've given you the relative links to familiarize your self with how things work, and I really don't see the point on carrying on further. If you really want to contribute, the entry could certainly need more content on his accomplishments (with notable and verifiable references to back it up), and more references overall. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that does make sense. Even though I still don't agree, I will leave the page as is, and I will look into adding more towards the article as a whole. Thank you. Rubix world (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Battlezone (1980 video game)

Since I'm apparently ignorant of what needs a citation in Wikipedia and what doesn't, or what counts as verifiable and what doesn't, I'll defer to you: this Google search reveals a lot of mentions of the connexion between Battlezone and the 1812 Overture, does one of them meet our stringent requirements? Srnec (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Any reference needs to follow established policies and guidelines. Instead of being sarcastic, feel free to look through said google search and find a source that meets WP:Notability requirements. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we don't need to follow established policies and guidelines. But seriously, I was not being sarcastic (okay, maybe a little). And I'm not sure what notability has to do with this. I just thought that since the game can be played (rather easily, I'd think) and the 1812 Overture can be heard (again, easily), that the fact was verifiable without a "citation" (to what?). And can I ask, if you are familiar with the game: is that or is that not the 1812 Overture? Srnec (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Qix

Hello. I wrote "Trapping the Qix...[1]... I wonder why it was deleted. --Buster7 (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Because it violates gameguide material policies and video game article guidelines of non-permissable material (hence the tag that was at the top of the page for WP:GAMECRUFT). Game playing strategies are beyond the scope of a Wikipedia article. Something like that is certainly welcome at a fan site or site that deals with game strategies and faq's, but Wikipedia has specific policies and guidelines on maintaining a specific type of material in articles. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Request

If you have the time, please post a link to the RfC for "handheld video games". I believe that's considered protocol. -Thibbs (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Its on the video game project talk page where I said I was going to be doing the RFC at. Please don't spill the debate over there as well, I posted a simple statement that we disagreed and what we disagreed on, and pointed everyone to the handheld talk page for the full discussion, trying to keep it as neutral as possible. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not intend to "spill the debate over there," and I believe you are demonstrating unwarranted levels of bad faith in my intentions. I am unfamiliar with WP:VG and I would like to repeat my request that you provide me with a link. You can post it to my talk page if you wish. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, knock off the continued accusations against me - you're the one that's coming off exactly like what you're accusing me of. I never characterized any of your edits as anything but good faith edits, nor had I taken anything personally as you're continually demonstrating now. Now for the third time, as I stated, its on the VG Project talk page. You just demonstrated you know how to get there by posting WP:VG above. You can either click on the discussion page tab there and see the topic listed in the topic index at the top of the page, or you can click Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#RFC_at_Talk:Handheld_game_console. Either way, this is coming off as some sort of veiled attempt to document some sort of supposed hostility towards you by having me jump through hoops to walk you through to where I said the RFC was. I.E., if I don't, then you can point "See, he's being uncivil". Once again, I am not being hostile, I am not being uncivil, and I am not accusing you of bad faith edits. I even partially reverted one of my own reverts at Speak & Spell when I realized you had added a lot of other great material to the article. I would appreciate it if you would respond in kind cease and desist all accusations. I'm a long time editor and contributor here and am well familiar with the ins and outs of the processes on Wikipedia. I'm not interested in going around and around with accusations. I'm interested in gaining consensus on the matter. Hopefully the RFC with the video game project, and the responses of a lot of the neutral people in that project, will accomplish that. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I know it may have looked like I know how to navigate WP:VG, but I assure you I do not. I had attempted a "find" function for the words "RFC" and "Comment" and I had even followed up on some of the "Request" portions of the board but they just led me to "Request for Creation" portions of WP:VG. I apologize if you feel attacked by the fact that I have asked you to engage constructively with me, but in all honesty that's how your edits have come off - as unnecessarily brutish. I think it would be in your best interests to restrain yourself from dramatic edits in the future until proper discussion has taken place. As you can see in this instance I waited several days for a reply before making a (let's be honest) relatively small edit to your article.

On a semi-related note, let me just clarify. The discussion part of the RfC is to take place where? at WP:VG or at the talk portion of the article? I have added a post at talk on the article but now I worry that if that's the RfC then you may consider that "interfering." -Thibbs (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Everybody was requested to respond to the RFC at the talk page of the handheld game console page where you and I were already discussing. The announcement was at the VG project talk page because the article we're discussing falls under the bounds of that project. And just so you know, I was not worried about interference. I've been in discussions in the past that spanned multiple pages, and they became confusing with who said what where or even redundant in some cases. So I wanted to make sure all the discussions were in one place. That's also why I tried to do the RFC as neutral as possible, so you wouldn't feel the need to start a discussion there as well. That's all I was worried about with it. Since we're on the same page now as far as what each other's intentions are, let me extend my hand to you in friendship and clearly state let's start over, and I look forward to reaching a consensus on this matter. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept your friendship and your request to start over. You have claimed that you believe I am editing in good faith and I will take you at your word. I also believe you are editing in good faith for what it's worth. Our disagreement is purely definitional and thus ultimately relatively trivial. -Thibbs (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

One more quick note, now that I've examined your RfC and since I've told you I didn't intend to interfere, would you mind expressing my point of view in the RfC as well? Right now it looks a little one-sided if you know what I mean. More like a "Request for Backup"... -Thibbs (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Which part came off as one sided? All I stated was that you want it to appear there, I don't, added the statement about you adding good material to Speak and Spell, and directed everyone to the handheld talk page to get our overall positions. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I just edited it again and took out the sentence about the Speak and Spell page and changed the wording of the final sentence. Does that current version come off as more neutral to you? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Handheld games

Hi, Wgungfu. I wanted to say two things. First of all I really appreciate your willingness to work together on these new improvements we're making to the article. Maybe this is thinking too ambitiously, but I think we may yet be able to turn it into featured content! I'm being really strict with myself on the citations so at least from that angle featured status should be easily reachable. Again, I'm glad we've put our differences aside and I look forward to continuing this process with you. You seem to know a lot about the subject even if it is just OR ;)
Secondly, I want to let you know that I'll be away from my computer starting now. I'm just headed home now and Christmas vacation awaits. I will be completely unable to help locate sources or anything like that over break since I will have no internet connection. I will of course review all the improvements that have been made to the article over break, and hopefully things will be in much better shape than they are now. Cheers, and have a happy holiday. -Thibbs (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays. I'll try and make sure your concerns are all addressed if any updates are made. Look forward to working together in the future. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:Re semi-break

It's more really an attempt to force myself to cut back some that will more than likely fail. But here's hoping right. :-D (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC))

Atari Adventure

Could you please direct me to the wikipedia policy that precludes notable ports? I take you at your word that its unlicensed, but could you direct to a source that indicates that the author of the Iphone port has violated copyright? Furthermore what wikipedia policy precludes discussion of copyright violations?

Honestly, I'm really confused as to basis on your reversion. Wikipedia extensively includes passages on notable, but illegal activities. I'm confused on how describing a possibly illegal port of software could be sacrosaint over the multitudes of articles on other illegal activites. Thanks! Dman727 (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As stated, the policies of WP:COPYVIO and guidelines of WP:VGSCOPE under Exceptions are clear, and something that we are very vigilant about. There is also no demonstrated licensing on the author's site, including when questioned on it (you'll see my question in the commentary, and all future posts by me regarding this issue were ignore and not approved for posting), nor was Atari very happy when I discussed said violation with them. In contrast for example, the Adventure II author's site clearly states permission was given. Yes, illegal activity can be discussed, providing the subject itself fills notability requirements. If you can find reliable and notable 2nd party sources that show this iPhone clone "has achieved notability because of their far-reaching impact on the game(s) they are based on.", then certainly they can included just as various notable clones are in other articles (i.e. there notable were clones of Pac-Man in the arcade at the time of Pac-Man, or clones of Pong on the pong console market in the 70's). At the moment, its just another Adventure clone on another platforms and does not enhance the article in any shape or form, other than to promote that a clone is available on the iPhone store. It needs much more notability beyond that. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

External Links for Battlezone (1998)

Yes, Battlezone Federation is a user-created site, but this game is 11 years old. There are no remaining official sites for Battlezone. This game is no longer supported by Activision, but is kept alive by it's remaining players. I do not, in anyway profit from this other than getting more game players to try Battlezone. The site has an installer for the game with all the latest patches and fixes already applied. There are multiplayer servers still up, and this game can now be played for free, since it's been abandoned by Activision.

4.240.39.236 (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As you have been explained, per policy of external links, it is not allowed. We've gone through this so so many times with all the Battlezone related pages here and fansites attempting to add their links on the basis of offering patches and other material (Talk:Battlezone_II:_Combat_Commander#Reverted, [2], [3], [4]). Its a fan site, Wikipedia articles are not a collection of external links, and the link serves absolutely zero purpose for enhancing an encyclopedic article - which is the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia article do not exist to support the subject, i.e. the Wikipedia article on Battlezone 1998 does not exist to provide support for that game. Its not allowed, period, yet you keep trying to force the edits from multiple IP's even after being explained this by myself and another editor. If you continue on this course of forcing your edit/link in the external links area, your multiple IP's will be reported and blocked. You have now been given multiple warnings and explanations. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

World's first traditional video arcade cabinet made from wood

Please tell me where is photo of world's first arcade cabinet made from wood and which was its video game title? I thought that Pong is first ever wooden - nonplastic cabinet with video game:

• Image:PongVideoGameCabinet.jpg - wood 1972
• Image:Nutting ComputerSpace-Blue.JPG - plastic 1971
• Image:Galaxy Game 1971 first arcade game.jpg - plastic 1971

My guess was based on Timeline of video arcade game history. 91.94.241.227 (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is a) Its trivial and non-important. b) You called it the "first arcade made from wood", when arcade games used wood long before the invention of video games. c) You need a reliable third part source calling it the first, you can't add content based on personal observation. Likewise, in relation to your list, Galaxy Game uses wood. And Computer Space is fiberglass. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant video arcade, not non-video arcade. Which video arcade was first ever made from flat wood plates with T-molding? I need this information because I want to make custom ARCADE PC cabinet, using first ever video arcade flat wood plate design with T-molding as inspiration. I thought that Galaxy Game is plastic, because it uses white joints between front and back blue halves, which is similar to plastic Japanese Candy cabinet.91.94.241.227 (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Galaxy game was a one time custom built cabinet - it did not come from any arcade company, so its design doesn't reflect any standards of the time. Parts are plastic, but the bulk of it is wood. As far as what video arcade game was first to use traditional arcade cabinet constructs (i.e. wood bodies with t-molding), that was most likely Pong. Pong, like most early video game machines, were based around the already standard electro-mechanical arcade game cabinet designs. Big and boxy, because they were designed around space needs for electro-mechanical equipment inside. In the late 70's and early 80's the industry started becoming more video game specific and constructing video cabinets in a design spec more specific to video game needs, and by the mid to late 80's with the switch to Jamma became pretty standard in video game cabinet design. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me where are exact dimensions and plans of Pong cabinet - I need them for proper reconstruction of it as world's first ever traditional arcade cabinet construct in form analogous to Hanaho Arcade PC: http://www.hanaho.com . 91.94.241.227 (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The manual for it never gave dimensions for the cabinet. Your best bet is to find someone who actually owns a Pong arcade game and have them measure it for you. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

All Pong dimensions I found here: http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=63361 Now anyone can rebuild this world's first traditional video arcade. 91.94.235.18 (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Classic cabinets earlier/simpler than Galaxy Game

• http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?game_id=9074 1972 - Pong
• http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?game_id=11656 1970 - Apollo 14 - earlier even than Galaxy Game named in Wikipedia as "First Video Arcade" 87.96.30.89 (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Apollo 14 is an electromechanical game, not a video game. And its from 1972, not 1970. You can see better pics of it here. I've contacted the people at KLOV regarding fixing the error. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?game_id=10600 Missile - 1969 too has classic arcade cabinet design.
• http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?game_id=9771 Star Trek - 1972 has simplest cabinet design. Do you know simplest? 87.96.30.89 (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, Missile is an electromechanical game, not video. Star Trek is a clone of Computer Space. As far as cabinet designs, as stated in the previous section, video game cabinets in the 70's took their design from electromechanical game cabinet designs. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I searched further, and noticed that Missile is earliest ever electromechanical game that still looks like classic arcade video game. Do you know earlier electromechanical game that still has classic looking cabinet? 87.96.30.89 (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There were lots of them and you can't possibly have looked through the entire International Arcade Museum there. Also explore other sites than KLOV, its hardly a complete listing. There's also plenty of books on the subject. I'm not sure why you care what the earliest EM with square standup design is? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to find absolute ancestor of all upright electromechanical and video cabinets to know how they evolved, and when making Arcade PC, to escape from design uncertainity. Do you know simplest design than this used in Star Trek? I searched both:

• http://www.arcade-museum.com/search.php
• http://www.klov.com/search.php

using Type:Videogame / Date Range 1 to 1969 and in both cases Missile was earliest. 87.96.30.89 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are run by the same person, just different search engines. Missile is an electromechanical game, not a video. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Because this person classifies electromechanical video-like games under Type:Videogame, and thus limit between video and electromechanical games is blurry, can you tell me which classic video game cabinet has simplest=more rectangular design than Star Trek ? I treat rectangularity as escape from design confusion of classic arcade cabinets. 91.94.109.141 (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

He does not classify electromechanical games as video games, its just that those entries happen to be mislabeled. The site is user contributed (like here), so there are errors sometimes. As far as what cabinet to use, go with Pong. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I rather will use simplest known cabinet form - Star Trek , but simplified as much as possible. Is Star Trek really simplest cabinet known to you? Yes or no? 91.94.109.141 (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "simplest cabinet", you're describing things that only make sense to you. If you like a cabinet's design, then use it. If not, then don't. I don't see what further help I can give. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

By simplest cabinet ever I mean cabinet which is a single fully rectangular perpendicular box, exactly as Star Trek, or simpler, for example without angled as in Star Trek, but instead with horizontal table. I searched KLOV/Arcade Museum in Type:Arcade in dates earlier than Star Trek and I found nothing simpler than Star Trek. Maybe you know something simpler? 91.94.109.141 (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The closest you're going to get is something like Pong or Space Invaders. I'd strongly suggest at this point you join an actual community forum dedicated to coin-op construction. Arcade Controls is a good place to start. I really don't have much more to offer on the topic at this point. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As you see, Pong and Space Invaders are less simple in shape than Star Trek, thus I will stick with Star Trek derived design, but as simple as possible. 91.94.109.141 (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wgungfu. You have new messages at MuZemike's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pac-Man for the 2600

I have an Atari question that I was hoping you might be able to answer, namely, when and under what circumstances did Atari license Pac-Man for the 2600? I pose this question to you because of the contradictions in the print sources I have been able to find. That 30 secrets of Atari feature in the Feb. 1984 issue of Computer Games Magazine discusses coin-op president Joe Robbins negotiating the deal with Namco before the game was popular and without authority and getting severely repremanded. Al Alcorn tells a similar tale in an interview excerpt in Steven Kent's book, but places the year as 1978 and claims Robbins received general rights to Namco coin-ops and that this was before Namco had even had a hit yet (since 1978 would put the event before Galaxians). I assume Alcorn is misremembering, however, as I know from some internal newsletters I found someplace on-line that Robbins did not join the company until 1980 when he became co-president of coin-op with Gene Lipkin. Furthermore, it would surprise me to discover Atari was licensing home rights before the whole Space Invaders thing a couple years later. I was just wondering if any of your own research on Atari history sheds light on these contradictory facts. Indrian (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Couple of things - they actually began negotiating Space Invaders in '78, because of Manny Gerard. He saw how popular the game was, and ordered Atari to either make a clone or get the rights if possible. Secondly, Atari had a very close knit relationship with Namco. Namco's video game division was formerly Atari Japan, they continued to distribute Atari's coin-ops in Japan, and Atari even manufactured and distributed their EM based game F1 and continued to license and distribute Namco coin-ops up until the split. So a mechanism for licensing coin-op wise was already well established and in practice. As far as Joe Robbins, you are correct - he did not join until late Spring 1980 (he was announced at the June 4th coin-op meeting that year according to Coin Connections, which was a newsletter sent out by Atari coin-op to vendors, arcade owners, etc.) As far as what Al is not remembering correctly, it could be a) Someone else that did the negotiations earlier, or b) He simply was remembering the wrong time. I can email him and ask him directly if you want. It wouldn't be admissible as a reference of course, but it should help clear it up as far as which of the above references to use on the matter. Most of my focus right now is in the early formation and the split years, so I haven't really done many interviews right now in relation to the time period you're asking about. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would not want to impose, of course, but if you did ask him, that would be interesting to know. I am certainly aware of the close Namco/Atari relationship in the 1970s, so you are correct that negotiations of some kind would not be out of place in 1978, but are you sure that Space Invaders was licensed in 1978, because I was pretty sure it was sometime in 1979 from the sources I have seen, or are you saying Gerard got the process moving on his own in 1978 and brought the idea to Kassar, who concluded the actual arrangement in 1979? Indrian (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Gerard, as overseer of Atari (since it was a subsidiary of Warner), ordered them to look in to licensing it in '78 and if they couldn't license it a clone was to be made of it. Being Kassar's boss, he actually had a lot of influence and direction at Atari. The licensing was concluded in '79. I.E. the process started in '78 and was concluded in '79. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That is what I figured you meant. I knew Gerard was the instigator, just not that the process started so early. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to talk about this stuff; it would be nice if Alcorn or someone else can shed a little light on the subject, as it seems there is quite an interesting story there, just one it is impossible to tell fully with the currently available sources. Indrian (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• That was a fast response. Yeah, it looks like 1980 is the right date. It is clear Robbins was the one who made the deal and it could not have been in 1981 because Pac-Man was certainly an unqualified success by then. Probably tomorrow I will add the info to the Pac-Man 2600 article using the 30 Secrets of Atari article as a reference. I will probably avoid giving a date one way or the other and just state that Robbins joined the company in mid 1980 and that the deal was made before Pac-Man had achieved popularity. That way, there is nothing there that is not supported by a reliable source. Thank you again for taking the time to investigate this matter. Indrian (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wing Chun

I was wondering if it could be more written as a history of each branch, mentioning the significant figures in each and how things were passed on. If it is written as prose it will be harder for Joe Blogs "I've just opened a WC school after a 6 hour video course by X so am under their liniage", to add them self in. The easiest place to start is the ones with bio's here as we can stich bits those together, but other than that I wouldn't really know where to start on the subject. --Nate1481 10:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

More fun with Oom Yung Doe

I've recently elicited some specific criticisms of the article from Subverdor (talk). Since you've made some helpful comments & edits in the past, I'd really like your input on the issues described here. Given the fact that you do have real-world experience with TMA, I'd espcially appreciate some comments on the similarities/dissimilarities between OYD and other TMA and on how we can describe those appropriately in the article. I realize that you do a lot of other things, but I'd really like your input on this bolus of proposed edits. Thanks! Cjim63 (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey since, you are the definitive source for all things Wing Chun. It'd be great if you could show me this "main history" section in the wing chun pages. I noted the beginning history about the five elders and you took it down.

To the definitive source of Chinese Kung Fu.

Hey since, you are the definitive source for all things Wing Chun. It'd be great if you could show me this "main history" section in the wing chun pages. I noted the beginning history about the five elders and you took it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.178.228 (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I'll advise you to follow WP:Civil and watch the sarcasm. Secondly, the main article on the various history stories on the origins of wing chun is clearly linked in the beginning of the section in question. Lastly, the five elders story is one of several and can not be presented as the "definitive" version. Wikipedia has policies on neutrality of information, and as long as other well documented viewpoints and stories exist, no single one can be presented as the main story over all others. At least not without verifiable and reliable sources presenting and backing up said claim. Your attempted edits followed none of this, with wording far from neutral and bordering on WP:OR. An encyclopedic article on the art must take in to account a neutral and all inclusive presentation of information, not just how you or your specific lineage view things. There was already an extensive consensus process involved in the formulation of the current content to make sure this all inclusive approach was followed. The type of edits you attempted were in direct conflict of this, and consensus must be demonstrated for those type of sweeping edits, which when taking in to account he non-neutral and exclusive nature, are not likely to happen. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise, I'm watching all the sarcasm on the Wing Chun page. Theres alot of it. There are alot of "writers" on here. Your claims of the Five Elders being clearly marked in the main history of Wing Chun is false. If you do your research, and go into the main history of Wing Chun. You'll find there isn't any mention of "The Five Elders." Trust me, it didn't come as any surprise to me. Just in case you didn't know. Ksfkay (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Guinness 2008 Gamer Edition

Hey Marty, I was wondering if you have a copy of Guinness World Records 2008: Gamer's Edition? I'm not sure where my copy is—probably boxed up somewhere—and I was hoping you could look up the content for Pong and Super Mario Bros. 3. Pong is almost ready for GAN, and I've got a draft of SMB3 almost done that could fair well at GAN and maybe FAC. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, all I have a copy of is the Arcade volume of the Twin Galaxies Book of World Records (they supply all the records to the Guiness Edition anyways). What were you hoping to find regarding Pong in there? Its not really a record scoring kind of game, since its score limited. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember it being briefly talked about in there on a couple pages, and wanted to see what extra information could be added. It provide some good tidbits for Space Invaders and Super Mario 64, and I thought I'd check it for Pong.

The book actually provides a good deal of history in addition to records. I highly recommend the 2008 edition. The 2009 is more of a supplemental update to the 2008 one, and not as good as a stand alone book in my opinion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

Marty, since the queue at WP:GAN#VGAMES is pretty short right now, I did some quick fixes to get Pong prepared for GA. In its current state it should pass without any major problems. Would you mind giving it a once over to see how it looks. We can finish it up for FA after it passes GA. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

No problem, I'll do that later on. BTW, I'm in the middle of interviewing Atari co-founder Ted Dabney on this and other related material. Pretty interesting stuff coming out. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooohhh... Interesting. The research on Pong has got my eye on the Atari, Inc article. The more sources the easier the job. :-D (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

Well if you're going to go that route, might as well be the Atari Inc and Atari Corporation articles. ;) But yah, if you want to move to tackle Inc after that, I'll provide whatever I can. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Firearm

Your edit to Firearm has been reverted. Gunfight should not redirect to Firearm so the tophat is unnecessary. I have changed the redirect to point to Gun Fight. Dbiel ^(Talk) 05:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ron Gordon

Saw the small edit where you added information on Gordon, which led me to do a little research that now has me completely baffled. I know you have been doing research, so you may have something other than the online sources to go on, but after looking at what little is available, I am unclear what position he actually held at Atari. First, most of the articles about Gordon online are about his mind computer interface thingie, including the one you used as a source in the Atari, Inc. article. Some of these say he was chief executive (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1995/07/02/BUSINESS3375.dtl&hw=signaled&sn=173&sc=366), others call him the former president (http://news.cnet.com/Computer-with-a-conscience/2100-1001_3-229669.html), others, such as the Forbes article you cite to just say he was the "former head," and still others call him a co-founder, which is obviously false and also not presented as fact in what I would consider reliable sources, but just illustrates how much confusion there is about this on the net.

Getting into the primary sources, Gordon calls himself president of Atari in an interview at http://www.abilitymagazine.com/seymour_minddrive.html. Nolan Bushnell credits him with helping save the company by developing an overseas market in a quote in the sfgate article linked to above. Sure enough, an old Atari newsletter confirms that Gordon was international marketing director of the company in 1973 as seen on the last page of the pdf at www.digitpress/library/newsletters/stpong/st_pong_v1n3.pdf. (had to take out the .com from the link because when I tried to post this to your talk page it said that digitpress had been blacklisted) Another source I found was an account by a man who developed a device called a TDA, and in that document he says that Gordon left Atari as marketing director at http://www.explosive-mutation.com/public/telechargements/the_origin_of_tda_200904_eng_pdf.pdf, though he could certainly be mistaken or misremembering.

Anyway, the point of this long discussion is to illustrate that equally reliable sources appear to contradict each other on exactly what Gordon's role at the company was. He was certainly international marketing director in 1973, but it gets hazy after that. I don't think the current source cited supports the propostion that he was CEO of the company, though that does not mean that information is necessarily wrong. President seems impossible, since http://www.landley.net/history/mirror/atari/museum/cut2pin.html and other sources are pretty clear on the fact that Keenan held that post from 1974 to 1978. Does your research shed any light on these contradictions in the admittedly scarce group of soruces available online? Indrian (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was just transfering a section from the Atari article that someone had added. I never heard of the guy before that. I'm going to be digging further, I'll ask Alcorn more about him. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Be interested to see what you find out. I find it amazing that someone apparently so high up in Atari cannot be found in any of the major publications and websites that have covered the company over the years. If it was not for that one flyer with his name on it and that Bushnell quote, I would seriously be wondering if the guy had really had anything to do with the company at all. One thought that I had is maybe he ran a subsidiary. I do not know when Atari International was established, but would the dates work for him to be president of that organization? I think it is plausible he ran an international subsidiary or something weird like that and that the publications reporting on his mind computer in 1995-96 got themselves confused. This happens more often than it should with video game company executives; Bing Gordon is still credited as co-founder of Electronic Arts all over the web even though he was not even the first hire or in a top-level executive position when he first joined the company let alone responsible in any way for EA's conception. Indrian (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Been talking it over with Curt Vendel, and neither of us can find anyone or anything to confirm anything he claims and he's shown no proof to back his claims so far. They all come from him, directly or through interview articles, etc. which would also be info supplied by him. From what Curt said, "Atari was never saved by bringing its arcades oversea's, it was saved by Tank & KeeGames as the company nearly sank in 1974. Once 1975 came along and sales were boosted by Home Pong things kicked into high gear. If Bushnell didn't need the injection of millions to get the VCS out the door he never would've sold Atari in 1976... So I find everything this Gordon guy is claiming to be false and against what history is already told." I'd agree with him as well. Until a reliable third party source can be found that backs up the claims, I'd advise nixing it all together. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I am with you 99% of the way here, but he did have some role at Atari and the quote about helping save Atari came from Bushnell (who, of course, is not adverse to distorting the truth a little bit when it suits him). He may have had some impact, however small, as international marketing director in the early days and in helping keep the company afloat during the whole Atari Japan/Pong competition/Gran Trak 10 fiasco in 1973-74, but Tank is certainly what got them back on track, and I agree that any information this guy supplies as far as being president or CEO of the company is hogwash. Glad we (mostly) cleared that up. Indrian (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gotten a hold of an Atari company timeline/ flow chart from somebody who works with Ron Gordon and I am hoping we can somehow incorporate this into the relevent wp page - Atari Inc.?? Check it out here: Media:Spawnofatari.jpg.jpg I am eager to re-insert the line about that was deleted from the Atari, Inc. page and I am gathering as many sources as possible, unfortunately primary sources from the 1970s aren't as easy to come by as the later articles and interviews. I'm sure you both understand this. Gordon is not currently involved in any commercial ventures, just his nonprofit work, so this isn't a promotional campaign, just an effort to get the facts out there. Wikinizerwoman (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I guess it does make sense that Gordon could have been president in 1974 since Kee Games did not merge into Atari until after it was revealed in December 1974 that the company was just a front. Thus even though we have a source that places Keenan as president in 1974, he could not have taken that position until the very end of 1974 at the earliest. Still shocking that no one ever mentions him or any of his contributions to the company. At this point, I am not sure we have enough to be worth putting in the article. Right now, he is just another executive with a couple of titles with little information on his impact other than one quote by Bushnell about his importance in establishing international distribution channels. If more information can be found, maybe something can be done. Indrian (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problems with all this. A) That's a "timeline" done for entertainment purposes from a video game magazine (most likely for Electronic Games Monthly) in the mid-90's, and not any real source of reference. (Likewise its most likely going to be deleted from wikimedia due to copyright violations). B) There's errors in it, most notably in the section that deals with Ron Gordon. Kee merged with Atari in December of '74, which is when Joe Keenan was brought in as President. It was specificall done because Atari was in huge financial problems because of Gran Trak 10 and Kee was taking off with the just released Tank. Likewise, Warner did not approach Atari until 1976 by way of reference from a venture capital firm that owned stock in Warner Communications and a percentage of Atari. So it would have been impossible for Gordon to quit in 1975 because of a warner deal in 1975. Likewise, I've only seen him stated as vice president of international sales and marketing. Any press source that's stated him as a former president has been quoting directly from Mindlink press material or quotes from him. I.E. all roads lead back to him for that statement. In fact, here's a direct statement from Al Alcorn in Steve Kent's book, that even states it was Ron's idea to merge with Kee in the first place:

"Ron Gordon, Bushnell's vice president of international sales and marketing, came back and said, 'Okay, look here's what you do. Merge Kee Games back in with Atari and put Alcorn back in engineering. Let Joe be the president of both companies.'" (pg 68)

So that further contradicts the claims of that chart and the other claims being presented here, and quite frankly Al's published word is a little more credible, given his well confirmed place in the company. And I'll bet money that this whole "saving Atari and making it attractive for Warner" thing was only describing the suggestion he made to Nolan as told by Al above. And quite honestly I'm still concerned about your (Wikinizerwoman) possible relationship to Ron, as your only contributions to Wikipedia have been in relation to Ron Gordon. And whether or not he has a commercial venture is irrelevant, it can still be considered a PR campaign. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The timeline image came from Wired Magazine, and the file includes proper citation, please take a closer look. I consider Wired to be a legitimate source, agreed? Wikinizerwoman (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, we are not in agreement. As stated, it suffers from the same things mentioned above. Nothing has changed, other than you've established it appeared in Wired, which alone does not establish credibility. It was filler for a poorly written article by a then college student that appeared in October of 1996. There are no citations in the image either, it simply states who did "research", and poor research at that: Nolon co-founded with Ted Dabney and built Computer Space with Ted Dabney. Breakout was released in 1976, not 1975. Alcorn did not "program" home Pong, there was no microprocessor. Keith Schaefer was executive VP of sales for the home computer division.[5] Lunar Lander was released in 1979 not 1976. Tramiel bough the Atari Consumer Division properties, not Atari as a whole. Atari Corporation was reverse merged with JTS, not directly sold. We could go on, but the whole thing is just poorly researched and not fit for a reference. Likewise, there are other appearences in Wired that contradict the title and state him simply as a former executive.--Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am still mostly with you on these issues, but I think more research is needed before this is dismissed entirely. It may be with the limited sources at our disposal we will be unable to come to a conclusion, and I agree that with the current sources we cannot reliably call him anything other than the international marketing guy, but I do disagree that Alcorn's words bring any closure to the matter because he is attempting to remember information from nearly thirty years ago and no matter his general good intent or trustworthiness may have forgotten a minor fact or two along the way.

Just to add a little more fuel to the fire, I discovered a citation to a 1984 article in Business Week magazine that talks about Gordon's current projects and notes he was the former chief executive of Atari. The text of the article is not online so I do not know what else it may say, and this is certainly not reliable enough to confirm a title for him, but it just goes to show that generally reliable publications were ascribing a leadership role of some kind to Gordon before the whole mindlink thing in the mid-1990s. Also, there is a New York Times article published in 2003, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E0D61131F935A25752C0A9659C8B63, which once again calls him president of the company in the mid-1970s. I imagine the New York Times is usually rigorous on source authentication for its facts, but again, I would not take this article as absolute proof either, especially since in 1984 the New York Times ran an article, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9500E5DD1638F93BA35757C0A962948260, that says he was a former chief executive and they cannot both be right. What we need is a document from the time either from Atari itself or from a contemporary periodical. There are just too many circumstantial references of Gordon having a leadership position to dismiss this yet in my mind, though nothing concrete enough to prove anything yet, and several strong pieces of circumstantial evidence that support the notion he was never more than vp of international marketing. Quite the puzzle. Indrian (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I may have just found the smoking gun we needed. At http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/14115 we have an excerpt from a September 1974 article in the New York Times about video games that clearly calls Bushnell the president of Atari. This appears to definatively disprove the notion that Gordon could have been president that year. Indrian (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason there couldn't be more than one president within a year, so the logic here is flawed, but at least we seem to be getting closer to facts. I am also compiling additional research. More to come. Wikinizerwoman (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

However, actual Atari related sources and people are clearly stating he did not have that title. His claims of being an "executive" have been confirmed (I.E. vp of international sales and marketing), and his role in having Kee merge with Atari, and its been suggested he did some presidential work for Atari. But that's a far cry from actually being President of Atari. So far we have a source from the same year that states Bushnell as President and none from then regarding Ron in any such capacity. And I still have yet to hear an answer as to what your relationship is to Ron? Granddaughter? Or should I dig in to that as well if you don't want to answer? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify my comment above, Bushnell was the original president of the company. In September 1974, he also appears to be president. In December, Joe Keenan became president. It is not impossible that Gordon was also president that year, but the window of opportunity is small. We now know his role in saving Atari was substantial, but we have too much contradiction in the sources to call him the president as of yet. Indrian (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Gah, I am really sorry to keep posting to your talk page like this, but I keep thinking of new ways to look things up and keep seeing interesting new info. At http://www.decodesystems.com/zap-atari.html we have a 1985 review of the book Zap! in IEEE Spectrum Magazine written by Mr. Alcorn himself who hints that in 1974 Bushnell brought in a completely new management team from HP to run the company. I have never seen this discussed anywhere else. Now Gordon was with the company before 1974 and I have to idea whether he worked at HP or not. It is also not clear whether this management team took over the top spots like president or just some VP positions. Clearly, however, there were some managment shuffles going on in 1974 that we could use some more info about. Indrian (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the email I just got back from Al regarding it:

Marty,

The Ron Gordon story is complex and often misunderstood. Ron was instrumental in the salvation of Atari at one point but he also has exaggerated his role somewhat. Different people will have different perspectives on Ron. Here is mine:

In the very early days Nolan tried to sell arcade games to international customers with disastrous results. I recall that we had dozens of machines stuck in customs hold in Japan that was costing us lots of money. Selling internationally is far more complex than domestic and each country is different. Ron was hired as a consultant, I think, and he got a very healthy commission on each sale. But at least he was able to fix all the mistakes we made and find new customers around the world. Once things were set up Ron hired Sue Elliot to do most of the administrative work and he enjoyed life.

Then Nolan hired the Wakefield, Mobilo, Oliver, Warman team to run the company. They just about ruined the company. That is a whole other story. Ron, seeing his golden goose dying sprang back into action. He fixed our relations with the banks, got Nolan to fire those guys, put me back in Engineering and orchestrated the merging of Kee Games into Atari to provide competent management. I don't think he ever had the title President but in fact took on that role long enough to re-organize Atari into a healthy company that would continue to pay him lots of money.

When Warner bought us out Ron's buyout was very large and caused some resentment among others. Most of these people were from Kee and had no idea how close to failure Atari was.

Hope this helps.

Al

So that's from Al, it corroborates some of what was being stated, but the title part is still iffy and Al even states Ron exagerates his role. Of course, a published reliable source would still need to be found to include this whole Ron Gordon thing on Wikipedia, but at least the email gives some more perspective. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I finally got a hold of some scanned original articles on Gordon (business week, forbes, sf examiner, mercury news) in jpg format. I'm hoping you can take a look and we can figure out how to incorporate Ron into the Atari page. I can upload the article images for you to look over, where would be the most appropriate place to do this? my talk page? plz let me know, there are about 20 relevent files. Wikinizerwoman (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You can download the articles here: ron gordon articles zip Wikinizerwoman (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Robotron: 2084

Marty- I started doing some research on Robotron: 2084 as something do while Pong is waiting at GAN and before SMB3 goes to FAC. Anyway, I had some questions I was hoping you could help me with.

1. Kent's Ultimate History book states the story was developed first, while the history info in Midway Arcade Treasures states the story was developed last. Do you have any other sources that can clear this up?
2. The Arcade Treasures also mentioned that Jarvis was inspired by Berzerk and "Chase" for the Commodore PET. I did a search, but nothing turned up on Chase. I'm not looking for much, just a brief gameplay description to give some context to the mention in the article.

No rush on this as I'm sure you got some other things going on. Just something I think could at least make GA with a little bit of effort—maybe even FA depending on how much info turns up. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm diggin in to it, here's some inteviews though I remembered about that should be helpful in general for you. I own the PC version of William's Arcade Classics which has interviews of Eugene and Larry on it, luckily someone thought to put them on youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuEuCp280J4 --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's an interview I forgot about as well, that backs up the Chase claim. The Dadgum site has been around a lot of years and is a wealth of information. They were interviews in a book called Halcyon Days that the author (and owner of the site) eventually put up online. Great resource of interviews with old gaming luminaries. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy.

Thanks for the help. The Halcyon interview sounds like it supports the Midway Treasures info, though not explicitly. The extra information should really flesh out the development section. Hopefully I'll have some free time later this month to finish the article for GAN.

Time is not my friend right now, but I'll try to read up on the Ron Gordon discussion later this week. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

Re: Your mass cover requests

Yeh i understand that there are no covers for arcade games but i believe that arcade flyers should be used instead of the random screenshot and so i tagged them in the idea that arcade flyers are the equivalent to cover art. Salavat (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

>> The edits to Atari have been reverted, that page is only >> for summations related to the brand, not detailed expansion.

Atari Corp

The changes I made simply fleshed out the 1984-1996 Atari Corp. timeline, which was much, much shorter than the section covering 1972-1984. Even after my changes, it's far less detailed than the previous section.

The changes were made mostly from first-hand experience. I worked at Atari Corp during some of that time, first as the ST developer support manager and later as the Jaguar development tools manager. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikefulton1963 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike. Unfortunately as well, you can't add material based on personal experience as well. Such edits violate WP:OR, and need to be citable by reliable resources. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the material wasn't BASED on personal experience... I just meant that I had first-hand knowledge of some of it. Everything in my post could easily be verifed through magazine articles and other sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikefulton1963 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand, you had mentioned material you were adding was based on first-hand experience though, hence the WP:OR for future reference. As far as the material itself, again some of it was more detailed than needed for a summation and the rest of your edit chopped it up in to separate list like items when a prose format is what is desired at Wikipedia. I.E. a paragraph summarizing the products is all that's needed rather than a bunch of separate paragraphs. Likewise for the separate lawshit header - once again, fine for the main Atari Corporation page, not not for the summation format required at the Atari brand page. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Dedicated video game consoles questions

Why some consoles in Template:Dedicated video game consoles removed per WP:NOTABILITY ? Junk Police (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As stated, it was per the consensus achieved per discussion on the discussion page of that entry. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wgung, you of all people should know the 2600 version of Journey Escape at least has the initial bars of "Don't Stop Believin'" in it. Why it says it has no Journey based music I cannot say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.41.10.104 (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ron Gordon

Hi Marty, I posted a link to some articles about Gordon in the section on your talk page. It's been a few days and I haven't heard back, so I'm posting again hoping you'll take a look at it. I'm wondering if you want to take a stab at writing something about him on the Atari page, but if you prefer I can write something for you to look at. Whatever is easiest. Thanks! Wikinizerwoman (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

William Cheung

I am not sure, that I understand you correctly (English is only my second language.)
The sentence: "I'm also suspect that your only contribution to Wikipedia is this AFD."
Do you think, I wrote with different Names in Wikipedia?? Or do you think, I use this to promote William Cheung??

E. Boztepe was only an example for a good compromise.

Controversy
A Controversy in an Article about a living Person is in my opinion never good.
Wingchun4fun (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)