Contents 1 Remnants of a Scuffle over Dungeon Hack 2 A Nightmare on Elm Street (video game) 3 Revision 4 AfD nomination of Midway Arcade Treasures: Extended Play 5 AfD nomination of Tris McCall 6 Haunted House (vg) 7 Kindle 8 Ancient Domains of Mystery 9 Deletion of redirects 10 Angband edits 11 Please don't remove stub tags 12 Lighthouse update, should it be mentioned on Eschalon: Book 1? 13 Moraff's World 14 ANSI Art 15 Word as a word 16 AfD question: Recombinant text 17 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ragnarok (roguelike) forest.png 18 AfD nomination of Omega (1987 computer game) 19 "Significant coverage" 20 Goodtools 21 Barnstar 22 History of video games category 23 Chicken & Rice Tortilla 24 Fraction Fever 25 AfD nomination of MAngband 26 AfD nomination of Midway Arcade: Trilogy Pack 27 Colecovision edit 28 AfD nomination of Morley (cigarette) 29 Removed Pengo (Arcade) Easter Egg 30 Personal Software Services 31 Chromasette

[edit] Remnants of a Scuffle over Dungeon Hack

You reverted my notice with the statement "I understand WP:NOR." Do you also understand WP:3RR? Because you just violated the three revert rule on the Dungeon Hack article. Please stop. Please revert your change back. Nandesuka 06:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'm mistaken -- you're right at the edge of 3RR, but not over it. Nonetheless, please stop substituting your own opinion for those of reliable sources. Nandesuka 06:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I ask again, please stop vandalizing my User TalkPage with nonsense and use the appropriate discussion page in question. D.brodale 06:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your characterization of my discussion here as "vandalism" is as misguided as your substitution of your own opinion for that of MobyGames. Kind regards, Nandesuka 06:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Nightmare on Elm Street (video game)

I have moved Nightmare on Elm Street (video game) to A Nightmare on Elm Street (video game) as requested. → AA ^(talk) — 13:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

So, you're saying you aren't a nerd? :P SharkD 18:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Midway Arcade Treasures: Extended Play

An article that you have been involved in editing, Midway Arcade Treasures: Extended Play, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midway Arcade Treasures: Extended Play. Thank you. --B. Wolterding 11:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Tris McCall

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tris McCall, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tris McCall. Thank you. Optigan13 07:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haunted House (vg)

Sorry about that. I removed the table. -DevinCook (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kindle

Good work on the Amazon Kindle cleanup. I can't believe somebody sneaked an Amazon Associate sell-through in the external links. Brianhe (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Domains of Mystery

I am curious why you changed "postcardware" back to "freeware", when the game is clearly licensed as "postcardware" on his web site and in the program itself. Nowhere is it called "freeware", because that is not its license. Freeware is a different license than postcardware. Raven Morris (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the distinction between freeware and postcardware, and you're right to ask that the waters not be muddied here. I've reworded "freeware" to "available free of charge", which is both apt and maintains the connection to the following clause. Some may indeed send Thomas a postcard, but it's not an enforced license. Please note that the infobox lists the license as postcardware, as it has for quite some time now. D. Brodale (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, why in the world did you remove my update and add back in the very irrelevant "Version 1.1.0 introduced a talent system.[1]" ? Version 1.1.0 came out many years ago, it is far, far less relevant than the details of gameplay which I mentioned (that you erased).

The section is not a history report, it is refering to the most important aspects of character development. Being that it no longer mentions the various character development methods I listed, it is quite bizarre to pick a single trait out of a hat (talents), while ignoring the dozen other more important and more long-standing traits. Raven Morris (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. It may not be a history report, but you're overlooking the fact that ADOM 1.1.0+ is not available to all platforms to which the game has been ported. This would explain retention of the talent system in isolation here. I don't grasp the release date as a basis for argumentation, as even the latest version of ADOM (barring experimental ports) dates to 2002.

As for all the other details added to the article, the language I reworked tended along the lines of hyperbole and excessive detail (e.g., differentiating between "weapon skills" and "non-weapon skills" in place of "skills"). "Among other traits" expresses that those categories yet listed are not exhaustive.

If you truly feel as though the talent system is being elevated in some way (which was never my intention, nor, I would hazard to guess, that of the editor who first added mention of it), I don't see any great harm in removing it altogether, as it's in part a remnant of earlier editing of the article. D. Brodale (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of redirects

Hi, D.brodale! I'm curious what you mean by your edit summary:

flag for speedy: no one will search for subject title + disambiguator.

This is in regards to TOME (computer game) and TOME (game). Why delete those redirects? In the latter case, it looks like the original article was created with that name, arguing that *someone* thought to look there :) Let me know on my talk page? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angband edits

Hi, seeing as you're doing various edits of the Angband page, I thought I'd draw your attention to a replacement paragraph I just suggested on its talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Angband_%28computer_game%29#Alternative_last_paragraph_for_.22History.22_section

I obviously can't edit the page directly since I'm the maintainer. Cheers!

takkaria (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't remove stub tags

Please don't remove stub tags from articles, reducing them to only one. The purpose of stub tags is to inform editors that an article in their area of interest needs expanding. You defeat this purpose by removing them. SharkD (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

See comment on your Talk page. Keep comments relevant, timely, and clearly stated. Don't be an ass. D. Brodale (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think my message warrants this type of a response. There's no reason to be hostile to users who are trying to edit Wikipedia in peace. Wikipedia users try to get along and work together to improve articles. I don't see your mean-spirited comments to be conducive to the environment that is established, here. SharkD (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

See my earlier response, which you so neatly ignore in substance. I'm not being mean-spirited, I'm being blunt. On my Talk page no less. D. Brodale (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a mention of your comments to WP:WQA. SharkD (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Super. This is how to handle matters when someone questions your original comment? I'm still uncertain how I disturbed your Wikipedia editing (the presumed matter) by responding to an unsolicited and irrelevant remark of yours. D. Brodale (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

D.brodale, while I'm not going to comment on any other part of the dispute, I would caution you to consider not calling someone an "ass" in response to what could (and should) have been assumed to be an honest mistake, at worst. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I have no history of doing so apart from this one instance. Given what transpired ("any other part of the dispute"), I don't believe SharkD's original comment was an honest mistake, though I won't trouble myself to understand what prompted the irrelevant warning. D. Brodale (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lighthouse update, should it be mentioned on Eschalon: Book 1?

Hey D.brodale, just wanting to know your thoughts about if it would be worth adding in the fact that Basilisk Games is working on an update for the lighthouse, allowing players to travel to Ash Island by boat.

There's no set in stone release date, but it has been mentioned a few times on their forums.

I don't have an account, so if you post your response here, I'll probably see it. --15:56:10 PM, January 6, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.165.119 (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a run-of-the-mill editor, but suspect that this is something best left unmentioned without verifiable sources that support this work-in-progress. Given the state of the Eschalon article, it may also seem out of place to mention this update, as there's really no supporting context for the readership of Wikipedia to understand why it matters relative to the game as a whole. D. Brodale (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moraff's World

Thanks for cleaning up the article a bit, it's my most embarrassing article from when I had no clue what I was doing on Wikipedia. Eventually I'll get back do it and make it not suck, but a big obstacle to that was just how bad it really was. Hopefully with your clean up, I'll get to it sooner. So thank you and keep up the good work, it is appreciated! Cheers, CP 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANSI Art

I believe the Sixteen Colors link needs to be differentiated from the textfiles link which merely lists zip files available for download. Lordscarlet (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could expand on the reason(s) why you believe this to be the case? D. Brodale (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Because they're two completely different things? Is a site with a list of zipfiles to photos the same as flickr? Lordscarlet (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Word as a word

You are correct that Yendor is a proper noun. In the statement "The origin of the name Yendor is unclear", however, we are not talking about Yendor the person or the amulet, we are talking about how the developer came up with the word Yendor. This is using a word as a word, similar to the example "The term panning is derived from panorama, which was coined in 1787." given at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting). Perhaps this will be clearer if I present a sentence with a similar structure: "The term Yendor is derived from spelling Rodney backwards." (Whether that is true is another story, apparently.) Pagrashtak 19:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading the manual of style, the sentence in question (as written) offers no ambiguity in use–mention distinction and the word should not be italicized. I submitted the edit log in haste, neglecting to mention this hinging rationale for the reversion. The example is not similar to the sentence under discussion. The proposed rewording is not acceptable on the grounds to which you allude: the expanded claim is unsourced and therefore questionable in nature. D. Brodale (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not a proposed rewording, just an example to illustrate my point. Do you agree that in the above example the word should be italicized? Pagrashtak 20:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think in a similar case ("Yendor is derived from spelling Rodney backwards.") italics would be fitting. D. Brodale (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet not in "The term Yendor is derived from spelling Rodney backwards."? I fail to see how adding the words "The term" changes anything—they're both mentions and not uses. Pagrashtak 17:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD question: Recombinant text

I have very little experience in AfD matters, and am asking for your input before nominating an article for deletion, because, quite frankly, I do not want to be seen as someone who capriciously nominates articles which do not meet AfD standards.

If you have time, please take a look at this article. It was created by the person who—as the intro asserts—is the very person who coined the term. Most of the edits are by that person. Most, if not all, of the sources link back to this person. I mean, at best it appears to me to constitute OR, at worst, self-promotion. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. What do you think?

I selected you and many other editors pretty much completely at random; I picked one day's AfD archives, and clicked on the talk pages of the first two or three dozen editors' talk pages I came across. I hope that in using this selection method, I will get editors who are well-versed in AfD policies, yet who also represent a good cross-section of AfD philosophies. I will monitor your talk page for your response. Thanks. Unschool (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ragnarok (roguelike) forest.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Ragnarok (roguelike) forest.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Omega (1987 computer game)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Omega (1987 computer game), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omega (1987 computer game). Thank you. Jeepday (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Significant coverage"

For the record, I don't really think WP:N is clear at all. It doesn't define its terms; it supplies a supremely trivial example of "trivial" coverage and doesn't really give any assistance for harder cases, despite the fact that basically every AfD presents a harder case. I have the impression that WP:N is meant to be vague to allow editors to reach a wide variety of different consensus opinions and have support from the guideline. Croctotheface (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's possibly why it should be taken as a guideline and applied with reasoned argument. However, I think we both agree that it provides a starting point. The comment of mine to which I believe you're responding @ Brian Kuh's AfD was not meant to chastise or to simplify. My intention was to highlight that WP:N does set a bar in regard to this particular clause; my eye is drawn to use of the language "directly in detail", something that appears quite lacking in the present article nominated for deletion. It was late, and I must agree that I was overly terse. D. Brodale (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Goodtools

Hello I am the main editor of the GoodTools wiki page, and I have noticed that you have removed the refrences, (I agree they are not the best, but I can't find any better). Anyway, do you know of some concrete sources used for the information on the GoodTools page please?

thanks Anthall1991 (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I haven't looked much yet. I have my doubts that reliable sources that independently verify details about GoodTools will be easy to find, if they can be found at all. I share a concern it seems with Fram that the subject of the article does not seem notable, and may either propose or discuss with interested editors possible deletion if nothing substantial turns up in the near future. But I'm lazy and may not follow through on that. I strongly encourage you to seek out reliable, third-party sources for this article. I will help as I find time to, but can't promise I'll be successful. D. Brodale (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For good work generally cleaning up articles such as Permanent death, Omega (1989 computer game), and many others. Dreaded Walrus t c 16:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed you around a lot lately, and pretty much all of your edits have been the kind that take a bit of time, going over the article and doing the tough edits. Your effort shouldn't go unrewarded. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of video games category

1. Donkey Kong was involved in the video game crash, was partly responsible for getting Nintendo into the North American market, is the first game in the biggest video game franchise ever made, features the first appearance by the biggest video game character ever made, was the first video game ever made by the most widely known video game developer ever (disputable in quality or importance, but definitely not in notoriety), was the center of a major video game-related court case, and is one of Nintendo's earliest video games period. With that much history behind it, it's not simply "another popular game".
2. Super Mario Bros. is the best-selling video game ever made, was bundled with every NES (with the exception of bundles containing SMB/Duck Hunt or SMB/Duck Hunt/Track Meet), pioneered a number of gameplay concepts, inspired competition in the form of a more than 30 million copies sold franchise (in the form of Sonic the Hedgehog), is responsible for three major spin-off franchises, and is considered one of the most well-known video games ever made, save for games such as Pong and Pac-Man.
3. Super Mario 64 is considered to be one of the pioneers of 3D - it didn't invent it, obviously, but it was the first full 3D adventure game ever made. It was the best-selling console video game that generation, and is considered to have been one of the most important games in video game history.

And to add some others...

1. Pong - Ralph Baer received a medal for having created this game from President Bush; is considered to be the first game ever made by some; laid the groundwork for many games like it.
2. E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial - Need I say it? Considered the one major cause of the industry's crash?
3. Pokémon - Second biggest video game franchise ever made, a billion dollar franchise, more outside-of-gaming exposure than anything in gaming history (ie, movies, television shows, live shows, cards, toys, comics, misc. merchandise, etc.).

So, yeah. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, but if you'd read your Talk page, I already said I have no interest in engaging in a turf war over this issue, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. Please remove chip from shoulder. D. Brodale (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I know you enjoy it up there on your high horse, but yeah, g'down. You probably aren't as good as you claim to be.

You opened up to me the right to explain my edits. Don't use dumb phrases like "chip on shoulder". You said I was misusing the category, but when every article I've added it to is of historical significance (great historical significance, in fact), then I certainly am not misusing it. I was just explaining why I was right in using the category in the way that I did.

Oh, and I do recall there being a video game on the category, which would mean that I was right in putting the games I put there. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never ridden a horse. Perhaps you should cool down and consider that I've expressed twice now no interest in this subject. I've explained my actions and speaking of horses, perhaps you should stop beating this one. It's dead. D. Brodale (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Right - you went through the category and removed articles you didn't consider to warrant placement, but you have no interest. Yeah, me neither. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please recognize the application of timestamps to edits and what they mean. D. Brodale (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not making sense doesn't exactly become you, D.brodale. That doesn't qualify as a response, as it has nothing to do with this discussion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Two entries were removed. One is a game with no indication of historical value, assuming one accepts that individual titles are apropos for the category. The other is a vg year article wherein the only significant topic is a restatement of something already categorized. You may also note that both edits predate the comment on your Talk page and the present thread. Now that I have unpacked my remark for your understanding, I'll ask of you a third time to find something to do that is more productive than assailing me. D. Brodale (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So you have no interest, yet you not only were interested in the category before the dispute, but also apparently during it, since you opposed it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is large, and there is much to do. I don't recall there being a mandate that editors must chain themselves to particular subjects to the exclusion of everything else. Were such a policy to exist, I would not have time to entertain your innuendo and criticism tonight. I guess there's a trade-off to everything. D. Brodale (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in everything I do on Wikipedia. I never said you were chained to it, but you invited me to rebut your assessment of DK not belonging in the history of video games article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider that there are far more polite means of getting your point across in the future, and that when someone says that s/he has no strong interest in discussing a matter a length (considering a subject closed) s/he probably means it. Your personal interest does not excuse the tone of this thread from your end. You've gone far afield of whatever original point you attempted to make, and for no good reason. Goodnight. D. Brodale (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chicken & Rice Tortilla

		CHICKEN & RICE TORTILLA AWARD
		Since you have thwarted my efforts to visually include my dinner tonight on mainspace, I am awarding you this Knorr Lipton rice, Perdue chicken, Stop & Shop baby argugula blend salad, Huy Fong Foods sriracha Vietnamese hot sauce, Old El Paso tortilla Award for your efforts at making sure that illustrations used in articles are useful! -- House of Scandal (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2008

[edit] Fraction Fever

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Fraction Fever, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Fraction Fever. Gazimoff (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of MAngband

An editor has nominated MAngband, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAngband and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Midway Arcade: Trilogy Pack

An article that you have been involved in editing, Midway Arcade: Trilogy Pack, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midway Arcade: Trilogy Pack. Thank you. Gazimoff (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colecovision edit

Good catch on the intellivision controller comparison paragraph. It was a thinly veiled attempt to insert the Angry Video Game Nerd in to the article. There's been a number of attempts like that across articles after links to his videos have been removed from the external links sections. I really don't see him as a valid reference, nor as offering anything important to the articles to warrant inclusion in the EL sections. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Morley (cigarette)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Morley (cigarette), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morley (cigarette). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Pengo (Arcade) Easter Egg

When I can write the Easter Egg of Pengo (Arcade) that you have deleted? (Other games have Easter Egg into Trivia Sections). Thanks. --JoaquinFerrero (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Software Services

Maybe I am making mistake but you are editing many, many article about games and similar stuff. "My" article has been speedily deleted and I am sure that you know better of me if it is possible to revert this decision or not ?--Rečanin (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just recreated this article. Why was it deleted the last time? 2fort5r (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved. Check the logs. D. Brodale (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chromasette

Thanks for your work on the Chromasette article. You might be interested in taking a look at some original source material (scans of the newsletters accompanying the tapes) here. Looks like it came out on disk in June 1983 for the first time after an announcement in the May '83 issue. By reading through you might also be able to clear up some confusion on the price, and generally improve the article. If you judge this to be a reliable source, that is. Since I did the scanning, I'm going to shy away from referencing my website on Wikipedia. --Martinship (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)