User talk:MuZemike/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Put your knowledge to good use

Join us over at StrategyWiki. I just completed the guide for Zanac, and I noticed that you had made some edits to the article recently. I have fleshed out a walkthrough for all 12 areas, and would appreciate your amendments or corrections. I am User:Procyon on there, so hit me up when you've had a chance to review the guide. Thanks. Plotor (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent mass addition of tags

During your robot style additions of tags to articles, in a great deal of the articles you added several "this section" tags to the same article. In situations like that (where the bulk of the article has no references period), all that is needed is a single tag at the top of the page:

Citations of the type you added are meant only for pages that include references for a majority of the page but have individual sections missing references. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I will keep that in mind in the future. MuZemike (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hard work recognized

		The Original Barnstar
		Your hard work editing various video game articles has earned you this Barnstar. Keep up the good work! Lumaga (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Operation COOKIE MONSTER

In support of Operation COOKIE MONSTER (OCM) I'm presenting WikiCookies in appreciation for military service to the United States. Happy Independence Day! Ndunruh (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Sorry. I just don't like these AfDs, which try to delete commercially released games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (July 2008)

• Newsletter delivered by xenobot 03:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Project Nintendo?

I'm not in project nintendo, so I don't really care one way or another what talk pages get tagged with that. But I am a little confused on some of your recent edits for that. Why was Joust added to project Nintendo today but you just took off Klax? Neither one is a Nintendo property, but both were released for the NES as Nintendo licencees. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Joust was published on the NES by HAL Laboratory, which is a 2nd party developer of Nintendo. Hence, they would be part of that WikiProject. Same thing applies with Star Gate (Defender 2).

Klax, on the other hand, was published by Atari Games for other consoles and by Tengen for the NES; neither are 1st or 2nd party developer of Nintendo. And by the WikiProject guidelines, it cannot be considered a part of the WikiProject.

The requirements of inclusion of a game into WikiProject Nintendo is listed on its front page as follows: Also, please note that "game" articles are only included in this WikiProject if they are published by Nintendo. (1st and 2nd party.) A lot of NES game articles on Wikipedia have been incorrectly designated as such, and while I'm reworking and expanding the List of Nintendo Entertainment System games, at the same time I'm making small such corrections such as adding/removing the appropriate templates.

Hope that clears things up. Cheers! MuZemike (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the "warning" template on my user page.

I think you should reconsider when yo are putting warning templates on the pages of users were contributing to Wikipedia long time before you started nex time. And I do also welcome you on Wikipedia, and I am glad you are enjoying your stay. Platyna (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I really thought that labelling the rest of us as barnstar and template people was meant to be an insult, as well as us screaming out loud and trying to challenge credibility of other persons by attaching to their names edit counters and SPA templates to suggest they are sockpuppets. I thought that was definitely below the belt. Being here longer than us does not give you a free pass to hurl out such insults or to place yourself on a higher perch than the rest of us.

With that being said, it's only a Level 1 warning — I got one, too; it's not a big deal.

We're also trying not to degrade your voice or anything like that. We're not going after you like it's a personal crusade. Remember that I voted Speedy keep solely because of the way the article was nominated, which was 45 minutes after creation by a bot. Just keep the confrontiveness down. That's all. MuZemike (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate the "speedy keep" vote, however what I told it wasn't mean to be an insult, but a honest description of the phenomena occuring on the Wikipedia what I am finding annoying. And maybe for you it isn't big deal, but I don't like being smashed with institutional forms of punishment.Platyna (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:GAMEGUIDE

Hey. I got an "orphaned image" notification for an image you removed, and checked your contributions history. So thanks for your hard work in tagging and assessing articles, and it's particularly good to see that you've kept a healthy balance by also editing articles and addressing the concerns brought up by others. Editors who dedicate themselves completely to the rules, discussion or other non-article-improving activity tend to become... stressed. Now -- *chased off the computer he's on, let me get back to you :/ * --Kizor 05:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not trying to step over others here. But I did put your screenshot back in (now that I have looked at the article again), but in place of the title screen screenshot, which I do not think is going to be very useful of an image now. MuZemike (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That Drawn-out AfD...

My advice—don't let attitude or circumstances play into your decision. Behaving rudely or nicely has no impact whatsoever on Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Articles stand on their own merit, not that of the editors. The sweetest talk will not save a bad article, and the rudest talk cannot destroy a good article. My other piece of advice—when you're engaged in a conflict, always assess how you feel after you've typed something. If you feel calm, submit it. If you're angry, close the window and walk away. If you were about to type something bad, you'll be glad you didn't send it. If you were about to type something good, you'll be more well-written and present a stronger argument when you come back. I like to think I have a reputation for keeping a level head, and that's one of my primary methods for maintaining that. I don't know if you were angry at the time, but I feel it's good advice in any event. I can't tell you how many times I've typed up a couple of paragraphs and promptly thrown them away. Pagrashtak 18:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey...

...I wasn't biting you; sorry if it appeared that way. I have been trying gently to convince the main editor that the subject just isn't notable but I'm not getting through. I guess I should have put my comment up one line but I was hoping to kind of tag along after yours to kind of show that there are more people who know how things work. I was really directing elsewhere.  Frank  |  talk  21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. MuZemike (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Xenophobe References

Hiya,

I am the one who has contributed most heavily to the Xenophobe (and Space Lords) pages. Sadly, there are no official write-ups out there that go into the detail that mine does. My reference is my own experience playing the game and my very accurate memory for the details of those games that I spent many hundreds of hours (absolutely no exaggeration) playing. Um, that's hundreds of hours *each*. I was a bit obsessive about video games. Okay, scratch that. I *am* a bit obsessive about them.

I really don't know how to answer your... Hm. Not even sure what to call it... Evaluation? Of the entry. If you know of any official write-ups of the arcade game that are not strictly concerning the home version (plenty of those out there) or are not copyrighted, I'd be delighted to hear it. But otherwise, we're going with my own personal memory and experiences to furnish the facts about the game. And please believe me when I say that those facts are 100% correct.

Any advice? I'd hate to see all that work I put into that page get flushed just because I am not a Wikipedia-recognized "reference." Deejaye6 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I myself have heard of this game outside of the NES release, so it cannot be that difficult.

For gameplay, for instance, describe briefly how Xenophobe is played, but referencing only from the game's instruction manual (it must come from the the designer or publisher of the game) when at all possible. Include just enough information that the reader can understand how the game is played. (This is normally the most difficult part of the article; even I have a tough time doing this with some articles sometimes.)

For the development and reception of Xenophobe, that's when you want to include verifiable, third-party resources to back every single item that is claimed in these sections.

All of this can be found in due time; I would not worry about this article being deleted anytime soon at all. This article surely has enough right now to be notable. However, it definitely needs outside sources in order to make sure it stays that way. MuZemike (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome

Didn't see it till today. Added something to the SEMO dispute page. kind of serves as a closing statement. thanks for spending so much time doing your job. Andrelim1 (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding platforms in infobox

Regarding the your comment in your edit summary on Paperboy, actually its very clear that Platform(s) is for the launch platform. If you look, the infobox also includes other information only relative to the launch platform - modes, input methods, cabinet, display. Likewise the entire article, sans the ports section, is specifically about the arcade platform (the launch platform). If it were a generic infobox and an article discussing a brand series, I'd agree. However, that's not the case with the box or context of most game articles. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Softek (merger with article 'EDGE Games')

Might be a good idea, but if this is done then all searches for 'Softek', 'Softek International' and 'Softek International Ltd' would need to be redirected to EDGE Games as these are the three names by which Softek is commonly known and will be searched for within Wikipedia. I thus do not think it would be a good idea to do the merge unless all three search terms get redirected (not just 'Softek'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuZemike (talk • contribs) 17:58, Jul 30, 2008

Well, I dont think that upon merger the Softek entry should be cut and paste into the EDGE Games entry as the same information is already in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.85.4 (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar!

It has been great working on The Guardian Legend with another editor who is passionate and knowledgeable regarding the subject. In fact, your initial cleanup on the article is what convinced me that it was worth expanding. The result so far has been well worth it and its future looks promising. Rg998 (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

First party sources?

Excuse me, but where did you get the idea that Casino (video game) uses primary sources? None of the websites cited are ran by Atari. --harej 00:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

They need to be reliable; the two sites referenced are not. See WP:VG/S for video game sites which are considered reliable. MuZemike (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Orion's Belt Game Page

Hello,

I just noticed that you marked the Orion's Belt article for review regarding "notability" and "unreferenced". I created the article and I'm one of the developers. I would like to know what may I do to improve the quality of the article.

In your comments you specified:

• no sources cited
• notability is questioned

May I have some pointers on how to address these issues? Or what do I need to supply?

Thank you. Donbonifacio (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, I would take extra caution in editing the article as well as even deciding if you should, because you have a conflict of interest with the article. This can make things problematic in editing an article of a game which you have vested interest. Please carefully read WP:COI regarding what you should do regarding this article.

Second, you can simply kill two birds with one stone to remedy the notability problem. What Maramusine said on your talk page regarding the article's deletion a year ago still remains true now. You must find verifiable, third-party sources and cite them in the article to establish its notability. For references, I would also read WP:V, WP:GNG, and WP:VG/S; the latter is a list of sites who are known to provide reliable sources. If you can find such sources, then the article has a good start.

Of course, the last thing I want to see is articles get deleted, so hopefully such reliable sources can be found. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I will also have to put a friendly warning on your page regarding the conflict of interest so you know about it, just in case you don't find your way here and read this. MuZemike (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello MuZemike, thank you for your reply and guidelines. I'm aware that I'm biased towards the article, and I'll proceed with caution when editing it. As for the reliability, I have 2 interviews for Portuguese websites and our SourceForge page that states that Orion's Belt is a web game. Yesterday I added other references. If these references don't suffice, I really don't know what else to do. Donbonifacio (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I was researching for reliable sources for Orion's Belt. Isn't the reference of Jason Della Rocca enough? It you go to this post of his official web site, and ctrl-f for "Orion's Belt", you'll find a picture of the developers and I quote: "The developers of Orion's Belt picked up several awards."; Has you can see on Jason's profile, he is the executive director of the IGDA. Donbonifacio (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is starting to be familiar with another article that is being heatily debated for deletion, which is Astro empires; could be just coincidence, though. I should first ask what these websites are, (hopefully, they're not from tabloids like Correio da Manhã) and can they be translated to English (via Google translator or something different – this is the English Wikipedia of course)? Normally, interviews are only acceptable as far as establishing the game's reception, but not usually anything else regarding the game.

I think the reference from Jason Della Rocca's blog should be OK. If you look at the discussion here, they interpret blogs to be OK provided it's an "official blog" and not a "personal blog". If it's his official blog (I see it's sponsored by IGDA.), then I don't see any problems with it.

That's my assessment for right now. If you have any more developments, let me know. MuZemike (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read the discussion on Astro Empires, and this is a similar case. How about our SourceForge.net page? Doesn't that also count?

About the articles, the websites I presented are Porguguese GameSpot like sites. MyGames for example, publishes a magazine, a TV show and has the website. You can see here an article about orion's belt without any intervention from its developers. I've already added it to the game references.

Is there anything else I can provide to "untag" orionsbelt? Thank you for your time. Donbonifacio (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the SourceForge references wouldn't pass because there is no fact-checking available for that.

As far as the Portugese site is concerned, from quickly looking at it, it looks like it passes verifiability. It if has its own magazine, then it should have some sort of professional editorship, fact-checking, etc., that it would be verifiable. Make sure you make inline references to those good articles (the MyGames one needs the English-translated link, like the one you provided) when you expand the article. You can look at WP:CITE for how to properly cite those articles for Wikipedia articles.

By the way, you can remove that {{notability}} tag, if you like; notability has been pretty much established now. Remove the {{unreferenced}} tag once you properly cite those references in your article. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Batman for NES and Genesis

I hate to ask this, but what are you doing to my articles...? (LonerXL (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

First, I am including the two articles in a merger proposal, which will merge several articles into Batman computer and video games. Second, I removed the Gameplay sections in both articles because all it describes are information which can be found in a game guide (please read WP:NOTGUIDE). Adding game guide information is not appropriate for Wikipedia standards.

If you want to discuss the merger, then please discuss it at the designated discussion section for the merger proposal. (It has been up for five months without any closure, so I am closing it.) MuZemike (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flightstick

I closed this AfD as I boldly redirected Flightstick to Joystick. It seemed like a non-controversial redirect to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're still entitled to give the article its day in court, especially when someone tries to muck up the deletion process. Thanks. MuZemike (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability for Multiwinia?

Hello. I couldn't help but notice your edits on the Multiwinia article, and I have just two questions. The first is where it's noted that blogs are not verifiable (I can use other sources, it's just that one had all the gametypes listed, so it was convenient). The second is where you question the notability of the subject. Why do you think that Multiwinia isn't notable? NeoThermic (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First, WP:V, the official policy on verifiability, tells you all about verifiable sources. It says the following regarding blogs and similar sources (see WP:SPS for the entire section):

First, thank you for contacting me. Hopefully, I can get the article in question on the right track.

• Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

Basically, blogs are self-published; that is, anyone can create them. They do not involve editing or fact-checking. It's like saying that I claim that Earth is flat, and I try to verify that from someone's blog entry claiming that it is flat. However, there is no fact-checking behind what that blogger posted, and that's where you run into problems.

However, the exception may be in the case that the blog by someone qualified in a certain field whose work has been published by verifiable, third-party sources:

• Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

With all that said, without having such sources that are considered acceptable per WP:V, the article does not meet three of the five criteria listed in Wikipedia's general notability guideline, mainly Reliable, Sources, and Independent of the subject. I also have not seen any proof of substantive coverage, and because of the lack of reliable sources, I cannot presume notability. Hence, that is my rationale for the article not meeting the general notability guideline and consequently my questioning of the article's notability in general.

You can establish notability by including verifiable, third-party sources cited properly in the article. A good place to look, as far as video gaming-related articles are concerned, is here at WP:VG/S — it's a list of sites that have been determined by the community that they produce reliable sources, such as IGN, Gamespot, and Joystiq. It's also a good place to see what can and cannot be acceptable sources as far as articles for video game articles are concerned.

If you can find reliable sources for the article that establish the article's notability, then the article should be notable.

I hope this helps out. If you have any other questions, please let me know. I always try to help others out provided that they ask. MuZemike (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The blog linked isn't just by anyone though, and thus could fall under the "expert" clause. Rockpapershotgun's report on Multiwinia is by Kieron Gillen, who is not only notable enough to have his own article, but as noted in said article is famed for his games journalism :)

I will add a few more references; the reason I chose the RPS blog was mainly for the fact that all six modes were described there, and the fact that the preview copy sent out to the press only has two or three game modes active, depending on what site received it, making it hard to reference independent sites for that info (I could reference the game homepage, but then that'd be a contrast to independent). NeoThermic (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'd probably say the blog would fall under that exception and be fine in this case. Let me know if you have a question about anything else. MuZemike (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for your help. At which point would it be "correct" to remove the notability and Primarysources tags? What I did today isn't much, but I'm pondering where the bar is :) NeoThermic (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, go ahead and remove them. I might add a {{refimprove}} tag later on to remind that you do need some more sources, but you defenetely have enough to avoid AfD or anything like that. Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. MuZemike (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for List of Nintendo Entertainment System games

Hello, MuZemike. I just thought I'd let you know that I have left you some comments on the Video games project's peer review that you put up for this list. I hope my comments are able to help you out. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 04:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying to get back to it, but won't be able to in a week or so. I'll leave comments on the peer review on that page itself. MuZemike (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me just reply to your comments really quick to help out:

• There's no need to link every region in such a huge list, but link it when you explain it in the lead, and I think you'll be good there if you decide to keep the codes.
• As for the merger, well, User:A Link to the Past seems to have a lot of issues when it comes to country representation, and if you decide to propose the merger again, I would definitely be in support of it.
• When I referred to List of Sega 32X games, I was more or less emphasizing the lead section expansion, since it will really be necessary if you send this to WP:FLC.

Hope that helps more. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 04:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (August 2008)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)