User talk:Martin IIIa/Archive 2

Neutral notice

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

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

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

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

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

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

re: Jack Sebastian

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

September 2013

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

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

Request

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

My info on pricing for the Genesis and Sega CD didn't come from the article; it came from retailer price listings elsewhere in the magazine. Sorry, I thought I had made that clear in my original edit summary, and rereading it now I see that I did not. Now, I realize that retailers don't always follow official price points, but there are listings for two different retailers and they both show $229 for the Sega CD, and their prices for the Genesis differ by only $5. In addition, one of them already lists the CDX for sale, and they use the official $399 price point. All that said, I realize that this is not the same as a reliable source stating that the Sega CD's price dropped to $229 in (say) November 1993, and in retrospect I was probably too hasty to change the statement to "(more than the individual Genesis and Sega CD units put together)". Maybe we should just delete the price comparison altogether until we get something rock solid on what the prices of the Genesis and Sega CD were at that point. I don't know if you've noticed, but I've been going through mid-1990s gaming magazines for info, so I'm bound to stumble on an actual news article on the Sega CD price drop at some point.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is WP:NOPRICE, but at the same time it appears that this seems to confirm it, and that article is used in the sourcing already, which makes me wonder how the old wording got there in the first place. I would be willing to bet it was less than the launch price of both, but I think having those price points would provide good context for that statement, which has some further backing. Perhaps it's something to keep our eyes peeled for; it would be good support if it can be found. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 19:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I found it! The price drop was part of the repackaging with Sewer Shark. I'll add that info to the Sega CD article first, then take a shot at working it in to the Genesis article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Reception additions

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

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

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

I happened upon your edits whereby you added a ton of reception information. I see that you are slaying some WP:OR and WP:FANCRUFT as a bonus. I see that someone else already noted this above, but I just had to say I'm impressed. And I'm just as impressed at the number of game magazines you apparently have. Where'd you get them? I do that kind of thing but probably not quite that much of it, so I know how in-depth it can be. Good jerb. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Meant to reply to this earlier... I already contacted you on your talk page, but thanks. Most of the game magazines I actually accessed through scans that folks have uploaded online, though I have my own hard copies of a few issues.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Shock Wave

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

Whatever you say, troll.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The games are completely unrelated, and the shooter is far better known. Stop your nonsense! --Stormwatch (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Maximum Magazine

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

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

Jurassic Park SNES

An anonymous user edited the page for Jurassic Park (SNES video game) [[1]] on February 5 and added the following to the reception area: The game is critisied for not having any save features. I was wondering if this is actually supported by the reference you provided on October 10, 2014. Thank you. 2602:306:80E5:6970:4560:FD3C:3E41:6E82 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

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

re: GamePro 1.0 review

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

Shock Wave + Assault

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

You seem to lack knowledge of the guidelines which Wikipedia uses to determine which title an article appears at. Which title goes with the expanded version has nothing to do with the matter. In any case, the consensus was to move the article to Shockwave Assault.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

A total absence of replies does not make a "consensus". More likely no one even saw your demented proposal before you made the illogical move. --Stormwatch (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Not likely at all, given that I posted the appropriate tags on both pages and requested input from WikiProject Video Games.--Martin IIIa (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

A barnstar for you!

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

ArbCom elections are now open!

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