Open main menu


Master System salesEdit

Just wanted to say nice work on clearing out that myth about how many Master System units were sold. Once misinformation like that starts propagating, it's really hard to put a stop to it, and I for one had been swallowing the 13 million figure for years. Interesting to learn that the Master System probably sold less than the Saturn.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Too bad the people pushing 40 million plus for the Mega Drive aren't as easy to deal with. You assume the highest numbers possible to prove 13 million can't be reached. They assume the highest numbers possible and insist it's correct and that it must be included. (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Halo 3 SalesEdit

When it said 14.5 Million, It meant Halo 3. Not the Halo Series, the Halo Series has sold over 40 Million Copies, not 14 Million. Halo CE, received Billions of hours. I myself contributed a couple Hundred hours into the Series.


Regarding PokemonEdit

I may have missed this discussion here...where is it said that they used VGChartz as a source? Because I see no mention on the page linked to.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


Just wanted to give a heads up that my latest article in RetroGamer is coming out now (100th issue special). It's about the crash, hopefully clears up a lot of the more common missconceptions (which seem to be throughout the crash article here). At least as much as I could in the limited space I usuall have. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Gran Trak 10Edit

Hi, i've noticed that you deleted a sentence about Gran Trak 10 being the first arcade game that used Read-only memory (ROM). Although there are a lot of sources (like Roberto Dillons The Golden Age of Video Games) stating that GT-10 was the first one, it's probably not. But why are you referring to Clean Sweep (Ramtek) and Computer Space (Nutting Associates)? Clean Sweep was released in 1974 but apparently came after GT-10. GT-10 was released during March 1974 and CS in June 1974 (cf. Link1, Link 2). And why do you think Computer Space (1971) had ROM too? Even the Wikipedia article's stating that "Computer Space uses no microprocessor, RAM or ROM". --KaterBegemot (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Computer Space (per Ted Dabney) uses a diode matrix to establish the proper timings to draw the dots that make up the ships and such. I.E. the matrix is not storing any sort of memory and the ships are not resident in any sort of memory. The diodes simply produce the right timings that are needed to produce each of the individual dots (not specific pixels) that make up the ships. Most of these early coin designs used pure timing tricks to generate the display objects, PONG included. I.E. timing with counters to account for each object and motion. They didn't go by any sort of pixel mapping (sprites), and likewise no actual sprite collision detection. Everything was done purely through discrete timing circuitry. So PONG detects the collision of the ball and bat by checking for conflicting timers for instance. I think the confusion with Computer Space is because a) diode matrixs were also often used as ROM microcode stores in early mainframes and minis. b) Nolan came up with the idea to literally lay out the diodes used in the matrix in the shapes of the ships the dots would map out. Each diode corresponding to a specific dot. This was simply done for easy troubleshooting by operators in the field should a diode go bad and need to be repaired. But IMHO, a matrix being done to trigger specific timings for dots is a bit different than literally storing pre-rendered pixel and object info as one would expect with ROM based storage. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, I myself am not a technical person. How does Gran Trak 10 relate to this? My understanding is that it also used diodes rather than mask ROM, so are the graphics resident in memory in that game, or is the screen being manipulated in a manner similar to Computer Space? Indrian (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
AFAIK, the diode matrix is actually used more like a traditional ROM and the various pre-mapped raster based sprites are actually stored in there. That's what allows the detail of the car and smooth motion, which would have been too complicated to do via simple timers. It was done over at Cyan, who was doing most of Atari's wirewrap staged coin-ops during this period. The proof of concept wire wrap of each new game would be developed at Cyan and then the actual pcb laid out and produced at Atari (or Kee as well though they shared manufacturing). I'm actually heading out with Curt to San Fran and the valley area on the 13th to do a ton of interviews with ex-Atari people from this period including the people invovled with Cyan. So I should be getting much more detailed information regarding the game's development. To me, this early period of pre-microprocessor discrete electronics based "state machine" games is really really interesting because of all the tricks they had to do to create these games via pure hardware. It's really a lost art. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Jack TramielEdit

We'd actually been trying to reach him by phone since Friday to finalize the interview date/time for next week but keep getting voicemail. Just assumed it was because of Passover. I've got a note in to Leonard to see if it's true. I would think the press would have picked up on it already if it was, and I haven't seen a thing. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Just got confirmation from his son Leonard. He did pass away Sunday. We still can't change it without a source, but at least we know it's not a rumor anymore. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Contacted a freelancer I know from Forbes and an obit is up now - --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, condolences first and foremost to the family of course, but I am sorry about the timing for your efforts as well. Indrian (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Got back last Sunday, the trip was insane. 7:30am - 11pm every day with non-stop interviews. Got a lot of great material and a ton of items for the archive. Most surreal was walking though the old building where the 2600/5200 programmers were - with some of the programmers. It's vacant now, so the maintenance guy let us all in. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds great! I am certainly jealous. Really looking forward to the books. Indrian (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Eisner and HitlerEdit

If you look at other biographies such as Julius Caesar, there is a section on what happened after the assassination, if you look at John F. Kennedy there is a section on the funeral too. What about if we do something like that? IPWAI (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Eisner funeral was a fairly big event at the time, what I propose is that I put something in the Hitler article, then put a reference to Einser in and then you put some words about his funeral with a link to Hitler in the Eisner article. Would you would be prepared to accept that. IPWAI (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

As I stated in the English speaking world, I think you will find that the main interest in Eisner today is because of this event. The scholars were quoted in the section you removed. IPWAI (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC).

Polygon ManEdit

Hello, could you tell me which book you were referring to when you said "Steve Race describes it in Kent's book" please. As I'm planning an article on the marketing/advertising campaigns used to promote the PlayStation brand, and that book sounds like it may be a useful. - X201 (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. - X201 (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Endgadget Anniversary ArticleEdit

This is what happens when you don't have fact checking, vetting, or take everything Nolan states at face value. Endgadget just released their 40th anniversary piece and it's absolutely horrible. Curt's really upset his name is associated with it as well, as they didn't really use much of the facts he presented and just used a few comments, making his involvement seem more than it was.

Starts on page 58:

Once again Ted was completely cut out of the early picture. Likewise their journalistic mistakes like Nolan working at the amusement park in the early 70's - a time when Syzygy and Atari were already well in in play (his idea of video coin-ops came in the mid 60's when he was working at Lagoon amusement park), or statements like "Asteroids was the first Atari microprocessor game" are just plain silly to have in there, no excuse for that. They even made the usual mistake of claiming Woz was an employee.

Then Nolan's Al Gore like Internet section really just had me going wow as well. The Arpanet and packet switching were around long before said claim, even the later TCP/IP specification was already completed by early '74. Combined with his earlier statements about microprocessors, I was like "seriously?" The Intel 4004 came out in 1971, which hardly places Atari "pre-microprocessor", and then stating they weren't powerful enough until '77 when you have the 6800 and 8080 in 1974 and the 6502 in 1975, and Atari's own usage of the 6502 and 6800 starting in '75? Putting such content front and center and taking it seriously really makes them look bad. I cringed through the entire piece. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion when he can bring up specifics like T2 lines, packet switching, IP protocols and the like, I don't chalk the other statements up to faulty memory. It's creative memory. It doesn't matter when it hit the market either, it's contradictory to state they weren't powerful enough until '77 when your own company was already working with and releasing products (in coin) with them over the two years prior. Including the very console being discussed in the article, which wasn't suddenly designed out of nowhere in '77. As for the magazine articles, you should pick up the March 10th, 1975 People Magazine article. In there he's claiming output was 1,000 pongs a month world wide at one point. Yes, I read the gamers at work article, he's been giving several interviews like that as of late including Benj's Computer Space article at the end of last year. I just don't understand any of it, he has so much he can be proud of without resorting to this constant missinformation campaign. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Psygnosis/SCE Studio LiverpoolEdit

Truce called

  Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Psygnosis. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. It would be greatly appreciated if you could please explain exactly why you seem to consider it your job to decide what users are interested in regarding a particular article, while stating that it's not mine. IT'S NO ONE'S. We work as a COMMUNITY. You don't OWN the articles. Thank you. -- Trevj (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Kid Icarus RemakeEdit

Hey, I saw you removed the fan game from the Kid Icarus page. I was just curious why you didn't feel it was appropriate. I was able to establish notability thought numerous 3rd party sources and felt the legacy section of Kid Icarus was the best place for it because there is likely not enough for a full article. What do you think? PeterAmbrosia (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute ResolutionEdit

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Kid Icarus". Thank you. --PeterAmbrosia (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Breakout (video game)Edit

Was wondering if you could get involved in the discussion over at the Breakout talk page. There's a newer editor with a history of edit warring and ignoring policies that wants to rewrite history regarding Jobs' involvement. I'm really really busy working on the book, so I don't have the time to start throwing in resources to counter like I usually do. He's basically trying to paint it as Jobs was an actual engineer rather than just a service technician, and that he designed the game and just brought Wozniak in to reduce the chip count. Really silly. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, and thanks. I did one more response because him playing word games with "designed" was just silly. You can apply that word to any stage of the process. Someone designed the specs, someone designed the circuitry, both of those have to do with designing the game. BTW, we had it confirmed from two different independant sources (as in we ask them the same questions but without telling each what the other stated) - the main reason Woz's design wasn't used was because it used RAM. Woz confirmed that as well. Also, Bristow mentioned there weren't any sounds, score, coin registers, etc. that need to be there for a coin device. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, one last time. I'm out, this guy just wants to go in to circles and believes he's interpreting everything correctly and we're all wrong and laying our own contexts on it. He's even starting to self reference Wikipedia now. Up to you, I'm just too busy with the book. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. Send me an email again by the way, I'll show you a preview of some of the book materials. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Got it, just adding some more materials to the chapter I was going to send over. We just got donations of their financials from June '72 to June '73 and overall financials up through '75 for their marketing plan (when they were trying to sell the company), and I'm trying to process through that. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dale AlexanderEdit

14:46, 21 July 2012‎ Indrian(talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,118 bytes) (+83)‎ . . (yeah a statement that can be backed up by statistics is not "peacock language" learn the difference between puffery and putting performance in context)

The original statement remains POV-then there's the matter of your tone of address. I'll not have it, though from surveying remarks by you to other editors, it seems to be a favourite mode d'emploi of yours. It is possible to have disagreements with others and remain civil. Hushpuckena (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


Hi Indrian. I didn't notice it until quite recently, but after looking at a few comments you've left at the talk pages of User:Guyinblack25 and User:Bridies, it's become clear to me that you have more or less the same issues about me that Bridies has, but didn't want to get confrontational about it? I just came here to say that I'd rather prefer you (and Bridies) just confront me directly about them (don't worry, I won't be offended) rather than slowly building up resentment. Just like you and Bridies, my main intention is simply to improve the video game articles. Clearly both of you have more experience with video game articles than I do, so it would be helpful if you could help me out a little (and maybe provide some constructive criticism along the way) if you feel I'm doing something wrong. That's all I wanted to say. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

For his Japanese bias, see [1]. (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I added the material to the discussion, as well as my thoughts on the matter. Indrian (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Salviati articleEdit

Hi. I was just wondering that since you started the article on Antonio Salviati, are you the one who used the Gable books as a reference? It seems to be the only source of AS's birthdate, but I don't want to spend $60 to buy the book for that one fact. Do you have the book (Murano Magic)? Rskovach (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The sock is backEdit

It would appear that the sock puppet PeterAmbrosia is back, this time under the name ArealFatRabbit. Have you any comment? Deltasim (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Nolan BushnellEdit

I've restored the article to the pre-edit-war version. Please engage the new editor on the talk page to find a resolution to the current issues. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstarEdit

  The Sega Task Force Barnstar
Your work on Sega v. Accolade is fantastic! All of the additional sources and fleshing out are making this article brilliant. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 00:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
this WikiAward was given to Indrian by Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... on 00:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

NES/Famicom datesEdit

The anonymous IP trying to change the 2003 date on the NES article is also trying to push through 40 million sold on the 2600 page as well. Apparently he's using multiple IPs in this. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sega Genesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Rosen (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) 10:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The Half Million AwardEdit

  The Half Million Award
For your contributions to bring Sega Genesis (estimated annual readership: 612,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The Half Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

 This user won the Half Million Award for bringing Sega Genesis to Good Article status.

Well done! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The Video Games BarnstarEdit

The Video game Barnstar

For their effort in helping to promote Sega Genesis to GA status, I hereby present Indrian the Video Games Barnstar. Please accept this sign of appreciation from me. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Mega Drive salesEdit

You mentioned "The San Jose Mercury News and Contra Costa Times both give the over 20 million figure for U.S. Genesis sales in 1998". Can you give me the article titles and date of publication? « Ryūkotsusei » 16:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of video games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mainframe (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) 08:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi Indrian,

At the ProtoGalaxy featured article candidacy, you mentioned that you do not believe ProtoGalaxy to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Do you intend to initiate a deletion discussion?

Neelix (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Million AwardEdit

  The Half Million Award
For your contributions to bring Sega Genesis (estimated annual readership: 653,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. Quadell (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is an initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content. You are also welcome to display the following userbox:

 This user won the Half Million Award for bringing Sega Genesis to Featured Article status.


Hey, sorry to bother you, but do you think you could give me a hand here? I could really use a hand with some more sourcing to help back up what I've got, and I know you've got access to a wealth of resources that I don't. Thanks again, Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

  • No bother at all. I will take a look in the next couple days and do what I can. I don't really have much additional info on the Sega CD, but I can probably elaborate a little on what is there. Indrian (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
    • What you've done already is magnificent, Indrian, just as you had done with your FA review for Sega v. Accolade. Though, I must admit, I'm disappointed with the lack of comments and support it's received so far; I fear it may be at risk of being archived. On a side note, while researching more for a Sega 32X FA, I've also found some interesting bits here that further suggests Sony was not the developing partner for the Sega CD, with Tom Kalinske mentioning they didn't even have a hardware division at the time, which I think just lends support to the accuracy of JVC being the partner on top of your sources (curse you Kent for your prose inaccuracies), so I thought I would give you a quick thank you for staying stubborn on that fact. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 21:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I am certainly happy to contribute what I can. I will try to give the article a more thorough look over the next couple of days and give it my support, for what its worth. The article seems like its in pretty good shape and is probably FA-quality, or at least very nearly so. As for the Sony vs. JVC thing, I believe the confusion comes from the relationship Sega and Sony had regarding software for the Sega CD. Tom Kalinske has discussed in interviews how Sega of America worked very closely with Sony Imagesoft to get the company set up in the video game industry and to get the company to put its products on the Sega CD. Kent et al probably heard about this and thought they worked together on the hardware too. Indrian (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Not to mention that Kalinske mentioned the possibility of a Sega/Sony console with both companies working together on the same hardware, but Sega shut it down. It's weird because in a sense Sega was offered both the PlayStation by the Sony partnership and the Nintendo 64 with them not acquiring the MIPS-developed chip set used in it, and took neither in favor of Saturn. I appreciate your support as of late; it seems we have some similar views on article writing and Wikipedia standards given the discussion about Menacer going on. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 04:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ernst Stern, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cinema, Directors and Hungarian (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) 09:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

My comments about GA nomination of Asteroids. (:D)Edit

I'm lucky that Asteroids (video game) started receiving a GA review from you shortly after I nominated it for GA. I did the process of improving this article because I like Atari a lot, and the Asteroids game has a legacy of ports, influences, elc. How do like Asteroids, and why you like it? |>(@"<) (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I've addressed your concerns, so can the article pass its GA review? |>(@"<) (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I am currently in the middle of one final look through and copy edit. When that is finished, I believe it will be ready for promotion. Indrian (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I like correcting errors quickly. Of course, now with all the efforts put into this article, it will become a good article. |>(@"<) (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

ET and sourcesEdit

The vast majority of sources on the burial state that it consisted mostly or entirely of copies of ET: it's not just a widely held belief, it's a belief widely held to be a fact. Regardless of the factual status of such stories, to describe these as rumours would require either:

  • The sources themselves universally or almost universally describe them as rumours rather than facts, or:
  • There is a reasonable consensus among expert sources that the majority view is not true, and / or solid evidence in favour of the minority view.

Most sources over the 30 years since the burial report it as factual (often simply referring to it as the ET burial or similar), so the first doesn't apply. Counterpoints usually lean heavily on statements by Atari executives and Warshaw who admits his 'theory' is pure guesswork; I've never seen one that offered any solid facts as to what actually happened to the 2.5-3.5 million surplus ET cartridges if they didn't end up in the landfill. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there are only four major sources of dissent on the issue, with all other sources referring to them:
  • Marty Goldberg's book
  • Claims by Atari executives
  • Howard Scott Warshaw's silly theory
  • PR materials for the recent documentary (which rather obviously isn't going to get any viewers by presenting the excavation as a foregone conclusion)
Only Goldberg could reasonably claim to be a disinterested third party, and that's a minority of one. There are literally no good sources for painting the view as just a 'rumour' rather than something widely held to be the obvious conclusion of a company having a lot of stuff, dumping a lot of stuff and then mysteriously suddenly not having a lot of stuff. That's not speculation, it's inference. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've deleted some of the excess citations (kept the paper and ArsTechnica's "commonly cited") and changed it to 'inferred' which is less dismissive than 'speculated.' (Also, to be nitpicky, BRD is a guideline, I don't need to do it at all, it's just polite to). Herr Gruber (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, made the same change to the lead to the ET game page as well ("accepted" -> "inferred"). Herr Gruber (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice to not be referred to as "cranks and idiots" at least. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's face it, most of these "theories" either offer no explanation whatsoever of what is supposed to have happened to 8 million spare cartridges (or why a plant had 9-20 truckloads of junk lying around they'd never bothered to throw away), or go with Warshaw's bizarre idea that recycling 8 million cartridges would cost less in immediate terms than writing them off and recovering the inventory space for things that might potentially be salable. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Without passing judgement either way, just two points on that. First, it was about 3.5 million not 8, for what its worth. Second, they were closing down the El Paso plant and moving manufacturing offshore, so that would explain why they had things to get rid of. Indrian (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
By 8 I mean ET + Pac-Man (mid range figure of 3 million ET + 5 million Pac-Man), that was the total inventory surplus Warshaw thinks they recycled. And a factory that's been running in any normal way shouldn't have entire truckloads of junk lying around. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
First, I'll remind you that as a Wikipeida policy, WP:CIVIL is to be followed at all times. Calling myself and others "cranks and idiots" is not following that and can be reported if continued. Second, regarding your impression they were "truckloads of junk they'd never bothered to throw away." This material wasn't just "lying around" and was disposed of because of specific goings on at the El Passo plant. We directly interviewed the gentleman in charge of world wide manufacturing for the book (along with other executives, manufacturing people, etc.), who also donated his original logs (he kept a meticulous diary/log of all communique and all actions he took as head. For example he also logged things like when the order to stop production of Pac-Man came down the line). El Passo was all part of an announced manufacturing restructuring plan (announced earlier in '83). It moved to become automated (hence major layoffs there the weeks before the dumping), and was changing focus to mainly hardware manufacturing (El Passo and Puerto Rico had been the main game manufacturing plants in North America, which was now mainly moving to the "new" Taiwan factory), as well as becoming the main hub for the Atari Service Centers (where the small Service Centers all over the country would send equipment to either be fixed or replaced). The materials dumped included a wide assortment of manufacturing materials (game, console, computer parts), unneeded recently (over the last several months) manufactured games, and broken consoles/games/computers from their role as the Service Center hub. Most of that was also reported in articles at the time. Regarding the overstock (which was a small part of what was dumped), you're also making an assumption as to whether or not Atari was following "normal manufacturing procedures" (not to mention "normal procedures" is a loaded statement). Atari's over manufacturing and lack of oversight for adjusting production with regards to actual sales was more than well documented. As you stated, El Passo was not a distribution warehouse, which is where those millions of ET games would have gone back to from retailers (i.e. where they initially came from). It was a manufacturing plant, which is where the items are manufactured before being sent to distribution centers/warehouses. And the 9-20 truckloads were only a miniscule amount of what Atari had in it's distribution warehouses around North America. What we did find out however (and also mentioned in the book) is that a bunch of that overstock/returns from the warehouses were shipped back to Sunnyvale to be disposed of in a dump there in the vicinity of headquarters (which we verified the location of). I can't speak for Howard, he wasn't involved in manufacturing or distribution (and we did interview him at length in person). But the notion that was expressed to us by everyone else we interviewed was that it would have been cheaper to dump and not recycle (why would you recycle if your problem is overstock in the first place?) and that Warner and Atari had more than enough money to ship everything back to Sunnyvale or anywhere else they wanted. Just to double check as well, we talked to Leonard Tramiel as well to see what he had heard when they were going through stuff in July '84, and he verified they were told by Atari Inc. (now Atari Games) execs that the bulk of the game overstock (i.e. all the game title overstock) had been buried. A listing of the criteria and vetting process we went through for the book is here. Either way, all this is moot as it looks like you guys came to an agreement on the wording. The only thing I kindly ask is to please stop the personal attacks and hostilities in your edit summaries and conversations per WP:Civil. I hold no animosity and am always grateful for these sorts of discussions as they always help to make info as accurate as possible (which is all I'm interested in). We actually constantly continue to research and re-evaluate all material published in the book and related websites, such as seen [here]. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
My issue was with the idea of re-writing what the most widely held account is based entirely on internet incredulity (ie WP:UNDUE); I could perhaps have phrased it better, but I was referring to people who arbitrarily deny what the consensus is (because arguing unpopular viewpoints makes you not one of the sheep), not to everyone who supports alternative explanations. That's why I didn't add some sarcastic comment when I mentioned your book. :)
Also, I'm a little curious; everything else I've read about the El Passo plant said that they were closing it down to turn it into a (presumably non-Atari) recycling plant. Is that just people getting their wires crossed over Warshaw's ideas about recycling? Herr Gruber (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries, it's cool if you were making fun of everyone else except me then. ;) Seriously though, Indrian (Alex) is a good person and researcher. Regarding the El Paso plant closing down at that time to become a recyclables plant, I've never heard that one before (unless they meant when it was finally shut down in July '84?) Here's the announcement of the impending manufacturing moving, the layoffs and changeover at El Paso specifically, the Puerto Rico plant closing showing that El Passo was still in operation in April '84, and the final layoffs and closing of El Paso under Jack's Atari Corp.--Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


Would you happen to have any sources on the Menacer's development or any related internal stuff? Even a point in the direction of good sources would be helpful.   czar  01:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry, no. I appreciate your efforts to get this article in better shape, but near as I can tell, no one has really paid attention to the Menacer. Indrian (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
All right. Let me know if anything comes to mind   czar  19:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editingEdit

At this point I would get others from the video game project involved in the related articles, maybe post an RFC there. From the talk on my page and the other pages, it seems like they want to continue to do WP:Synthesis and ignore the actual context of the sources they're claiming, and it's approaching disruptive editing. At least with others involved to establish the consensus, it'll set the grounds for filing a disruptive editing claim. I don't have the patience (or time) to sit through one of these again. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


I've never been involved in a RFC before so this will be interesting. I do not mind endorsing since the way I've picked apart Jakandsig's 2600 sources should make anyone hesitate before implementing them, yet now they're in the article. Just in this brief experience with Jakandsig makes me concerned about all of his contributions. Of course, it would be best if the RFC involved you and Wgungfu more so than me. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Real talkEdit

I not going to jump to assumptions I am going to ask you directly. Why are you seemingly, to me, in my view of what you are doing, and you can easily jump in and prove me wrong here, invested heavily in reverting most of my sources (without reading them, from what i am seeing), not telling me about certain wikipedia rules as the new guy and instead frequently threatening or calling my edits disruptive with no context to how that is.

Now I could be completely wrong and I might be viewing you the wrong way and this whole thing maybe be just because I personally believe you have been slightly abusive, especially with reverts of whole edits instead of areas that you personally had an issue with. But then with the lack of you actually communicating with me you can see how one would think these views of you.

Now I want to edit with accurate sources as much as anyone else, and being a new guy and getting random claims of disruption in no context while then having very limited and vague communication in the "describe your edit" box followed by reverting the WHOLE PAGE everytime, well that would annoy every new users you see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talkcontribs) 02:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak/archive1Edit

Since you gave me so much feedback at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak/archive1, I was wondering if you would work with me at Wikipedia:Peer review/Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak/archive1, which needs a reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You are the 2nd person to say they would/could get to it, but no one has signed on yet. So feel free to sign on at the PR page. There is no harm if two people comment at the PR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Marty/Indrian/RyuEdit

We had met before in the Intellivision talk page about the sales figures. Thanks for contribution to my concerns, I'll now be able to add a lot more history to the page later on. But i have a small question for you.

Now there are a few game systems that seem to not have pages available. How do you create a new page? i figure i would ask someone who has already used Wikipedia instead of fiddling with certain things and ending up with odd results. Ha ha.

Edit: Please excuse the auto-correct phone typing.Leeroyhim (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


Where did Jakandsig previously engage in sockpuppetry?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I know where you are going with this. It was a lot more blatant. After his first block, he just used an anon account to hurl some insults. I am beginning to share your suspicions, but at least this new version is polite and uses the talk page. Indrian (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I was just wondering if you could provide a link to the IP he used, but either way I'm going to file an SPI.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you probably should. The account was user:2A01:7A0:10:149:154:159:248:1. Indrian (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sega does what...Edit

Does every Sega console have to be a problem? Now for Dreamcast sales, why do some say 10.6 million while others claim 8.2? Also, do we have any other source beside GamePro claiming Nomad sold 1 million? « Ryūkotsusei » 04:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Clones at Berzerk (video game)Edit

Could use your input. There's some anonymous IPs trying to push in a modern homebrew clone, and I've tried to tell them it needs to be deemed notable. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Re TigersupermanEdit

I'd say this is an even more obvious sock than Leeroyhim. The account is brand-new, created a couple hours after Leeroyhim was indefinitely blocked, and has exactly the same writing style and POV. By engaging in disruptive editing to make a point about how the biased Wikipedia community harasses new users, Jakandsig betrays his sockpuppet's familiarity with our encyclopedia. He's not even trying anymore.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I wrote my message to you before he started getting all petulant. I figured it was him all along, but worried there was not quite enough proof yet in the early stages. Now, as you say, it is quite blatant. Indrian (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting sources (again)Edit

Hey, Indrian. Before we get too far into the Sega 32X FAC, I've thumbed through my sources again and found a conflict based on the edit you made about Man!ac. Here's the issue: we have UK sales listed for the 32X, but according to Retro Gamer, the 32X didn't release in PAL territories until 1995-hence the listing of 32X sales until the print date. Honestly, though, I can't find a single reliable source that has the exact release date: I've seen sources that claim it was actually a week before the North American launch, and some that say January of 1995 without a specific day, none of which I can say are reliable sources. Any way you can throw me a hand here, or at least share an opinion? Thanks. Red Phoenix let's talk...check out the Sega task force 14:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I do have access to a few British papers. In July, the papers were reporting a November release. In early November, they were talking about a release later that month. On Novemver 27, the Daily Mirror stated it was coming out November 30. In December, the newspapers refer to it as a new system and are reviewing some of the games. It was definitely released in late 1994. I will source that in the article when I get a chance. Indrian (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't suppose....Edit

....that Chan-Murphy is yet another sock?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I have to admit that thought occurred to me...a lot. This is becoming farcical. Indrian (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
After I posted that message, he apparently switched to yet another sock, VirtualRay. It never ends!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and this IP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Even Fried Bandicoot and Guardianbot might be socks as well, although they are more prone to vandalism than the others....TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah it's been quite the barrage. Guardianbot was definitely a sock because he only went after editors that Jak and friends tangled with. I am pretty sure Bandicoot is a sock too because even though the account functions differently than the others, he is still hitting the same articles. I think we are watching a massive temper tantrum via proxy, which is actually kind of funny even if having to police all these articles is getting tedious. Jak's block expires in about five days, so it will be interesting to see what happens then. Indrian (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Now there's TheKingsTable, his tenth alternate account. This has gotten totally out of control.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sega Saturn and GiantBombEdit

I see what you were going for with you edit. However I did not actual compare the two systems. I did not say that, "The Saturn had the same problems as the Atari Jaguar" or that, "The Sega Saturn was hard to develop for BECAUSE the it had hard to program processors JUST LIKE the Jaguar". Instead, I put it in the context of what the industry though of both, both were considered hard to program for with the same reasons. So as I had explained to TheTimesAreAChanging, I did not violate SYNTH.

Your claim that GiantBomb page being a wiki however might actually be something to look at. I am not sure if we should exclude it since GiantBomb is a big video game site the likes of Gamespot and IGN, which are frequently referenced. TheKingsTable (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on Asteroids (video game)! :DEdit

Thank you for providing a solution to my temporary dispute with TheKingsTable over a sentence in the lead of Asteroids (video game). :D IX|(C"<) 01:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. For the record I believe you are correct that he is a sockpuppet, as I have been dealing with issues surrounding this user for some time now, but I try to take each of his edits on their own merits and work with him as best as I can. I understand your frustration though, as he does have the habit of adding the same material over and over again while ignoring objections. Indrian (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Will be reporting. TheKingsTable (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, you are certainly welcome to do what you feel you have to. Of course, no policies have been violated and the user that is at the heart of this whole sockpuppet mess also made baseless threats about reporting people, so you are probably just digging yourself a bigger hole if someone decides to file an SPI against you. Indrian (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be intentionally trying to spread fibs based on an assumption if what you say is true. So you seem to know what you are doing. Having people who had agree with my edits randomly reverting them for no reason other than baseless assumptions is an issue, oddly one you claim was me adding the same material. yet I did not, and it was thanked earlier, hmmm. It is also issue you are currently helping add to. I think that what you are doing is most likely breaking the rules, especially since it may cause future problems. TheKingsTable (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I also meant to add another sentence but it did not go through. You seem to be quite sure of your conclusion so why not just file that thing against me? Will solve the whole problem. That is if you are not doing this 100% intentionally without reason. TheKingsTable (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


At this point, the only reason I haven't filed one is because I really don't know where to begin; the disruption caused by this user is just so widespread. Here's another brand-new account, with the exact same editing style, making questionable large-scale deletions to Sega Saturn.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Indrian, I've been reverting plenty of edits done by Jakandsig and his sockpuppets (including John Mayor ERS, KombatPolice, Leeroyhim, and TheKingsTable) because his edits in general are so poor and disruptive. I wonder the Wikipedia community needs to discuss with Jimbo Wales the implementation of a rule in which a user can't create another account while blocked/banned except for when he calms down. IX|(C"<) 02:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've never personally experienced a one-man war on Wikipedia like what Jak has been waging. Here's another incredibly blatant sock.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Heads up: I've started work on an SPI, too, because I just can't take it anymore. I suppose I will add anything relevant to yours if you finish first.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm almost done, so depending on your progress, you may be better off waiting for me to finish.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, got swamped today and have not been on, so I have had no time to do the SPI. I'll just add any thoughts to yours. Indrian (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Cool, still finishing up. I'm trying to be as thorough as possible.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Done.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh you think you are clever!Edit

Seems I was mistaken, you went to an admin who shares your biased views! To deny concrete visual evidence is...Stunning... I guess you think you are hot stuff eh? Well remember, you are breaking the rules, and I will be finding an administrator who will fix the problem. Even if I have to join and attract their attention. I am tired of these lop-sided pro-Nintendo edits across multiple articles and still nothing is being done about it. Especially when there is 100% concrete evidence showing otherwise. So have fun for now. The NES page seems to have been fixed up without these bias pieces of information, so soon this one will too whether you like it or not, because believe it or not, some people like accuracy. *GASP* I know. (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Input from a talk-page stalker here: Really? Having worked closely with Indrian on a smattering of Sega articles for the better part of a year, I can definitely say he's one of the most accuracy-driven editors I've ever worked with, and I've never known him to have a bias when it comes to video games. In other words, 108.28, here's a trout for you. Red Phoenix let's talk... 22:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!Edit

Hello, Indrian. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Message to UserEdit

what do you mean Football is not a proper noun? Are you sure? Yeah, if I said you threw the football absolutely it would be lowercased, but we are talking about the name of the actual sport here. It's like not capitalizing Soccer in Fifa Soccer. Golden Cog Afternoon Karate Exit (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I also need you for a few third opinions when you have time. I'll probably catch them tomorrow for a response. Golden Cog Afternoon Karate Exit (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"Football" is definitely not a proper noun. Look at football. Note that its only capitalized when its an article title or at the beginning of a sentence. Seems like that would be a pretty crazy mistake to make on such a relatively active article. Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What you're saying does not seem to make sense. Football is the name of the game, when the game is named in part of a sentence referring to the game, it is capitalized like "Soccer" is in most news articles referring to the actual sport name. In a regular mention about soccer or football, they are lower cased, but that is not the case here. I left it alone anyway since Madden seems to be an active page, I'll get back to that later. I am dealing with smaller pages now. Golden Cog Afternoon Karate Exit (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


I'd like to apologize for being a bit tendentious about Saturn's probable redesign. In truth, I was trying to look at things from an adversarial point of view to see what response that might elicit, but I may have been reaching a bit. Suffice it to say, I am satisfied by the evidence you have presented.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  • You have nothing to apologize for; spirited debate like that helps improve articles. I feel there is more to the story than the current sources tell. Hopefully the full truth will be revealed some day. Indrian (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of which: "kool kitty" in the Sega-16 forum you linked to notes that SH-2 didn't exist physically until late 1993, around the same time Sega adopted it, so (to me as a dabbler) it seems possible Sega always intended to use it but had to use SH-1 for prototypes. That may not be especially likely, but I tend to agree that we don't know the truth of the matter with 100% certainty.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. There is some evidence that the SH-2 was actually designed specifically for the Saturn, so its very possible the SH-1 was just for prototyping. The reason there is some speculation that it was actually an SH-1 originally is the presence of the chip as a CD-ROM controller and the fact that a rumored spec in one of the magazines of the time stated it was an SH-1 (of course, if the SH-1 was just for prototyping, then the rumor could have been accurate that the current system included one, but incorrect that this was going to be the final chip). Even if it was an SH-2, the evidence is pretty convincing that the system only contained one such chip initially rather than two. Again though, some of this story is still not out in the open yet. Indrian (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worthEdit

The Video game Barnstar

In recognition not only of your indispensable role in making Sega Saturn a good article, but also of your broader contributions to WikiProject Video games. I am humbled by your civility and insight.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Another sock...?Edit

I came across this "new" user, AustralianPope. Looks suspicious to me.--Asher196 (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads up. We have been keeping an eye on him and using Sergecross73's talk page as a central communication point for Jak socks. Indrian (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Atari JaguarEdit

There's nothing "personal" about it. An edit that mass reverts a bunch of other editors with a summary that essentially says "Everyone editing this article is a sock puppet except me" should immediately arouse suspicion, even if one isn't experienced enough with Wikipedia to know that blindly accusing other editors of sockpuppetry is a common tactic used by trolls and editors who are trying to push POV. The fact that the accusation is obviously false - a quick look at the edits TheTimesAreAChanging reverted shows that they are completely unrelated - certainly makes the mass revert suspicious enough that it should be reverted. Moreover, simply saying that edits were made by a sockpuppet is insufficient justification for a revert anyway, since Wikipedia is concerned first and foremost with the edits themselves. Reverting constructive edits simply because they were made by someone using a sockpuppet account is pretty clearly contrary to the spirit of WP's policy on sockpuppetry.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

While it is appropriate to strike a banned user's contributions in order to enforce their ban, it wasn't my intention to revert you blindly, nor did I suspect you too were a sock. As I recall, Martin, you objected to some promotional text about "critically acclaimed" Jaguar games that were neither acclaimed nor present in the cited source. I carelessly assumed that Jak and co added said POV text, and thus that restoring the pre-sock version would eliminate the need for your edits. I regret the mistake. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Banning of AustralianPope and permission to re-purpose some of his edits to Nuon?Edit

Hey, I helped AustralianPope over the past few days (as you can see on my Talk) and didn't really want to have my time completely wasted by his banning. I don't know much about sock puppetry, but I was wondering how/why he was banned and how it was proven? It just seemed rather sudden to me, so I figured I'd ask.

My other question being whether or not I can re-purpose the edits to the Nuon page or if his work is un-salvageable?

Thanks, --Nicereddy (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the message. As to the banning, it's actually part of a long, drawn out saga that has gone on for a couple of months now. If you are interested in learning more, it can all be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jakandsig (be sure to check the archive as well). Now as to Nuon, by all means feel free to take anything that he did that had decent sourcing behind it and readd it. I am sure some of his additions were okay on that page, and your edits in support of his were probably okay as well. Just be careful to make sure that the sourcing is solid, as this set of accounts has a history of using sources poorly. I certainly am not against valuable improvements and would welcome your efforts. Indrian (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I'll see if I can find time for that tomorrow, thanks. --Nicereddy (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Brief accuracy opinion question - Sega CDEdit

Hey, Indrian. I've come across some unusual facts when researching Sega CD on prepping it for FAC again, and could use another hand to evaluate its accuracy. Once again, it does have to do with the Sega CD's sales figures, for which we have a number of 2.7 million units sold worldwide by the end of 1994 compliments of the infamous Man!ac magazine source, and we know that Sega turned away from it in 1995 until its final discontinuation in 1996. Most numbers from modern video game media cite 6 million total units sold, including GamePro and, as well as former Sega of America R&D head Joe Miller, in his interview with Sega-16. Previously we've discounted this possibility as being nearly impossible, but I've found a couple of things that raise its possibility that I'm not sure of. As you probably know, I don't trust Eidolon's Inn for much because their information has been shown to be pretty shoddy at times and that includes their Kickstarter book, Service Games: The Rise and Fall of Sega. However, their article mentions something that no other source has - a 50% price cut in 1995 from $300 a unit to $150. Likewise, a source I used for Sega Channel from a newspaper in Miami mentioned in 1995, albeit without time frames as to when this started, that quite a few Sega CDs were sold to Blockbuster for rental, and that according to Sega, "Rental is a big market for us". In your honest opinion, might these have influenced Sega CD sales enough to reach the fabled 6 million figure, or is Joe Miller wrong here? Thank you for your consideration on this topic. Red Phoenix let's talk... 01:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Honestly, I just don't see it. The 2.7 million number appears solid, as Screen Digest reported in March 1995 that the worldwide install base of the system through the end of 1994 was around 2.765 million, so that's two sources in agreement. I have not seen any other concrete sales figures, but the system was somewhere under two million in the US before Holiday 1994 according to multiple newspaper articles, which again jives with the figures we know. It really does not matter how much the system was discounted or how many outlets cleared out back inventory at bargain levels, high technology products do not sell more in the last half of their life on the market than the first half when they have already been superseded in the marketplace by superior technology. If that had happened, it would have made headlines everywhere. Instead, what few articles I can find in 1995-96 tend to consider the add-on a commercial failure.
One final note on Joe Miller. He is really not a reliable source for this information. When it comes to primary sources, one has to carefully weigh their knowledge and expertise to decide whether the information they are providing is really information they were privy too. Joe Miller was head of development at the North American subsidiary. He may have occasionally seen a sales figure in a meeting or report, but he did not have primary responsibility for tracking US or worldwide sales figures and would be unlikely to have intimate knowledge of them. There is also no indication that he was providing information from documents that he kept as opposed to just looking at figures on the Internet. Recollections of sales figures from memory from nearly 20 years ago by a person that would not have any responsibility for tracking said figures in the first place would not stand up to scrutiny in a scholarly work. Indrian (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I've always taken Joe's account with a grain of salt for that very reason, but I do find it a bit interesting because the interview was conducted in 2013, so there's no way GamePro or 1UP took the 6 million figure from him. I do have to wonder where it comes from, then, and I can't say I want to go speculating what might have been too much unless I could find some reliable source that indicated a sales spike as a result of a price slash, or that the 1994 sales didn't include rental units, or something of that nature that would reveal some information in an accurate and well-backed manner. I almost wished that the December 1995 issue of Next Generation included the Sega CD as a console it covered (it did only Saturn and 32X, the latter of which it indicated 400,000 units which may all be North America, further backing that the 200k number is totally false there). For now, I suppose the best way to handle it would be to do it as it's done with Sega 32X and say sales as of this particular point in time. Might you have a link to that Screen Digest, though? It might help to have a little extra backing on top of the Man!ac source. Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think this is probably a case of the reverse happening. Instead of Wikipedia taking its numbers from Miller, I think Miller took his numbers from Wikipedia. There is no proof of that, of course, but all his numbers do correspond to what Wikipedia said at the time. As for Screen Digest, I cannot take credit for that discovery. If you look at the bottom of Talk:Master System, Ryūkotsusei has provided scans that give some interesting figures on several systems of the period. Indrian (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streakEdit

You were among the discussants at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak/archive1 in January. There has been a WP:PR and I hope that you would re-evaluate the the current nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This review has been open since March 21 and is on the borderline. Since you commented on the earlier FAC, I was hoping that you might consider commenting on the greatly revised article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Your ContributionEdit

Thank you for clarifying the Wikipedia verification process for me. I was still not entirely clear on it. I would also like you to come and give you're opinion on what to do with that particular sentence that was being discussed on the talk page. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Debate about Impossible Mission article.Edit

I'm having a debate with JakIIDax about Impossible Mission here. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 18:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


What are some good sources on 8-bit game development, since I'm admittedly not well-informed? The reason I ask is because I just found an interview with Hiroyuki Takahashi and Shugo Takahashi of Camelot in Nintendo Power 229, and they say the original Shining (1991) took six months to develop, while the Game Gear Shining (1992) took three months to develop, and they don't sound like those games were particularly rushed: They're looking back fondly on how "taking a risk and making a game" was easier back then, and they add "That's what it was like at the time." I'm happy to be confronted when I'm completely off-base, so by all means pull no punches if I've latched onto some wildly atypical anecdotes. BTW, how is Console Wars? I've decided to order a copy based on good things I've heard, so I hope it will be worthwhile.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Hey no problem. I never claim to have all the answers, and its through back and forth like this that the truth (or at least as close an approximation as we can determine) comes out. To your question, I do not have a specific source regarding game development times, just aggregating from interviews. It appears at Atari at least, 6-9 months was a normal development period for 2600 games. For simple early British computer games, development could often be just 1-3 months, but part of that was really primitive graphics and sound and the fact that they were usually unofficial ports of arcade games so they did not have to come up with game elements from scratch. Most VCS games were arcade ports too, but the hardware was, of course, more difficult to work with and the programming more sophisticated. Six months for the original Shining is pretty fast, but not completely outrageous, especially since it is not an action game that needs a lot of animation. I don't know how many assets were reused for the handheld version (I know it was a different game and not a port, but some of the art and sound assets and AI routines or whatever could have been reused), but that could account for the quicker development time. By the 16-bit era, you were usually looking at up to a year because you needed far more professional art, animation, and sound assets. 3D systems pushed this to 18 months or so, and you need a good solid two years on modern systems. Remember, there is no doubt that games sometimes were developed in a quicker time frame, but as Cerny states in his Kotaku interview, this is rarely a good idea. That is not to say that specific game concepts or specific genius programmers might not be able to swing something faster, but as a general rule, it seems like a good six months is the bare minimum on an 8-bit console and a year on a 16-bit one.
As for Console Wars. It is fantastic. I agree with Frank Cifaldi's review on Kotaku that the dialogue is often stilted and unbelievable (much of the book is told as if the reader is a fly on the wall for actual conversations, but of course these people do not remember what they actually said 20 years ago so the author is reconstructing dialogue based on general recollections and personality traits), but the information is spot on. There are only a few minor mistakes that I noticed in terms of info I already knew, and there were definitely some things I was not aware of. Nothing in the book really changes the big picture as we already understood it; its just filling in details. For the Sega Saturn, it does not mention anything specifically about a redesign, though it does say that development continued to be difficult in 1993. It does go into a lot more detail about the attempted Sony-Sega hardware partnership and claims that Sega's engineers rejected the plan because the PlayStation was pushing entirely for 3D and did not do enough with 2D sprite-based games (this makes sense, as Sony rarely allowed developers to create purely 2D games for the system, especially in the first couple of years; Kutaragi really wanted to leave 2D behind entirely). There is no indication that Sega knew the full capabilities of PlayStation earlier than 1993 despite the attempted partnership, so nothing in there contradicts Next Generation on that point. Unfortunately Harris's sources are almost exclusively from SOA, so he did not have an inside view into the Saturn development process. The other big thing is that the book makes it clear that Nakayama pushed for the May launch and Kalinske was against it. I know that seems to contradict Kalisnke's statements elsewhere, but I do trust the book, since Kalinske was Harris's prime interview subject and main protagonist, so I am sure that came straight from his mouth. I do not have the book in front of me right now, but we will have to figure out a way to reconcile the sources. The book is a great read, and I highly recommend it. Indrian (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I guess I was wondering if American/Western companies might have allotted more flexible development time than Japanese companies, or if retrospective interviews with notable/famous developers might lead to an overestimation of the time allotted to the legions of more mediocre games/developers, but only as pure speculation on my part.
To be clear, in his February 1996 Next Generation interview Kalinske only says "I still think the surprise launch was a good idea" and "If I had it to do over again I would do it a little differently". He does not say outright that it was his idea. Considering those statements were made while he was still an employee, I wouldn't expect scathing criticism of Sega Japan, but the 1UP article remains an outlier on this matter. (There are errors in the 1UP piece--like the claim that Sega originally announced the Saturn as an all-2D machine in mid-1993, whereas when I tracked down the announcement in The New York Times it sounded strikingly similar to the actual finished Saturn, or the claim that Dead or Alive was originally made for the Saturn rather than the arcade, which AFAIK is totally wrong--but I still wouldn't expect them to completely doctor a quotation.) I pointed out seeming contradictions in Kalinske's own words at the time, so I'm not surprised the discrepancy remains a problem. Even assuming that Kalinske may want to distance himself from the surprise launch because it was such a fiasco doesn't really hold water, as his comments to 1UP were made fairly recently. I should note that GameSpot's "History of Sega Fighting Games" claims that the surprise launch was motivated in part by a desire to space out the Saturn releases of Virtua Fighter and Virtua Fighter 2 in the US, which is another piece of evidence suggesting the decision was made in Japan.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Jagged_85 againEdit

Hello, I thought you should be made aware that Jagged_85 seems to be back via sock puppet, certainly on Islamic history related articles. I've only seen a couple of computer game related edits by those sock puppets, but given his editing interests I thought it would make sense to keep an eye on the computer game history articles as well. Here's hoping he'll go away again, there's still a massive mess left over from his previous editing.
Current suspicious IPs are:,,, The only dubious computer game edits I found were a couple linking Super Smash Bros and The Outfoxies by Special:Contributions/, both of which were reverted fairly quickly. --Merlinme (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure to keep a look out. Indrian (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Saturn sourcesEdit

Since you're the new main editor for the Sega Saturn page, I thought I'd let you know that I've left summaries of EGM articles related to the Saturn on the article's talk page. If any of these sources sound useful, let me know; it wouldn't be much trouble to scan them. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

re: Talk:Telengard/GA2Edit

  Hey Indrian, there's a message for you at Talk:Telengard/GA2, when you have a moment czar  16:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Dreamcast and Sega's internal politicsEdit

Hello again, Indrian. I'd like to ask for your expertise once more... goodness, it feels like I've said that to you about a million times by now, but it's resulted in some spectacular articles when we work together. I know you're still finishing your review of Master System, which I appreciate and am working on as well once I have some more comments to go off of to have it ready. Anyway, this subject might be of interest to you, if you have a source or two that could back me up here. I'm currently going through a lot of material that JimmyBlackwing sent me to work on Dreamcast, and it's got a lot of great stuff on system development, history, decline... lot of goodies because he basically sent me every EGM and Next Generation from the era. That being said, what it's missing is a bit of Sega's internal politics during the Dreamcast era and its development, and the article makes some interesting statements but they're basically unsourced, so I don't know if that's the case or not and can't really say for sure. Most interesting to me that I'm seeing are two points of interest: 1.) Discord between Sega of America and Sega of Japan teams during Dreamcast development, with Hideki Sato supposedly being made unhappy that Shoichiro Irimajiri had SoA start developing a new console, so Sato started his team on one, which became the Dreamcast after being "Dural" and later "Katana", and 2.) an interesting quote from David Rosen in one of my sources suggesting at the end of Dreamcast's lifespan that he insisted Sega should get out of hardware for quite some time, but nothing really about the executives who chose to persist with Dreamcast and why if this was the case that Rosen's argument wasn't heeded. Might you have some resources about either one of these Sega internal political matters, or at least guidance to where I might go to find it? As always, I appreciate the hard work you put into these articles and for withstanding the wall of text I just put on your talk page by writing this request. Thank you, Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, I do not have too much that I can point to in reliable sources. From what I know, the Sato stuff is probably correct. Before he came to SOA, Irimajiri was brought into SOJ as executive VP specifically to focus on the consumer business because Nakayama's expertise was in the arcades. I believe I read in an article that this is the reason he initiated the Dreamcast project from the US: he still saw himself as the consumer point man. I will have to check my files on that to be sure. When I interviewed Bernie Stolar, he claimed Irimajiri initiated the project because of a lack of faith in Sato. My work is not published yet, so that can't be used in Wikipedia, but I just throw it out there as something that confirms some of what your other sources claim.
As for ending Dreamcast, when I interviewed Stolar and Kalinske, they both pointed to Okawa as the main actor in getting Sega out of hardware. This makes sense, as I have interviewed every American SOA president from Bruce Lowry to Bernie Stolar, and Stolar is the only one that indicated Okawa took an active role in the company's affairs despite being the chairman of SOJ from 1984 until his death (and briefly president after Irimajiri). I think that both Nakayama and Irimajiri were both interested in keeping Sega in console hardware, but in the face of increasing losses Okawa, a software guy himself as head of a computer services company, and the Sega board members representing Sega's bank joined forces to oust them both in turn and then end the hardware business. That is certainly the angle I plan to focus on in my own work, but, again, it's not published yet and I am still getting my sources in order on some of those points. I know that's not much concrete info, but I hope it at least helps focus your efforts.

P.S. Sorry about my negligence on the SMS review; I hit an incredibly busy patch. I will try to finish my review this week. Indrian (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

When you do get your work published, let me know... I may be long done with these articles by that point, but I would be most interested in reading them just to see the great work you do - that and I do find Sega's history quite interesting, as you already know. You know, I think I had you pegged as a professional author on business subjects for some time but never quite put it together; it does explain a lot about your knowledge on the accuracy of these subjects and how some sources we usually consider reliable on this site can be deceptive. I happen to be a self-published author myself, but in fiction - Wikipedia is the only non-fiction work I do. No worries about the busy patch; I'm likely to head into my own in the next month or so as the retail industry is not kind to its managers around the Christmas season. Dreamcast will be a long project, but your information certainly does help. If you decide you'd like to see how far I am or want to pitch in, I'm doing this one in my sandbox due to the complexity this rewrite has over ones we've done before. In any regard, thank you so much; if you're confident in this, it still might help to know this to guide my way to some reliable sources that will back this up. Thank you once again. As a side note on FA's as well, I did ask TheTimesAreAChanging about renominating Sega Saturn for FA status... he is still reluctant, but I know you have expressed interest as well and should you decide to, I am sure you will have my support. Red Phoenix let's talk... 01:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
There are two slightly different versions of this story. "Two rival R&D teams competed against each other to design a machine capable of placing Sega ahead of its rivals, one based in America and one based in Japan. This unusual gestation period came about when the newly appointed Sega of Japan president Shoichiro Irimajiri enlisted the services of Tatsuo Yamamoto from IBM to work on a design in the United States. However, when Hideki Sato, head of hardware development at Sega of Japan, caught wind of the plan he instructed his own team to produce a design for a new console, challenging his boss to choose whichever console came out stronger." Alternatively "Internally, Sega's President Shoichiro Irimajiri assigned Hideki Sato, who had designed the Saturn, to come up with a chipset design. Externally, Irimajiri created an 11-man "skunkworks" team outside of Sega to create a competing design, led by IBM alumnus Tatsuo Yamamoto; that project was codenamed Blackbelt." Okawa's role in getting Sega out of hardware is well-known: "It may well be that Okawa's vision and Nakayama's were diametrically opposed. Nakayama wanted SEGA to be a great hardware company, and Mr. Okawa simply did not...This conflict may have doomed the Dreamcast right from the start. Without Nakayama at the helm, SEGA's top brass didn't believe in the platform as a long-term goal." See also this interview with Stolar.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Cool, nice work TTAAC. I recall now a bit about Okawa wanting to get out of hardware, but hadn't really any idea at all that Nakayama was exactly the opposite and persisted that way. I am sure as I work on this restructuring that I will be plugging that in. Thanks for the other story as well; I'm sure I'll make use of both. Red Phoenix let's talk... 03:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Slowing on responsesEdit

Hey, Indian. I'd like to apologize for my tardiness in responding to Talk:Dreamcast/GA1, but my responses may be slowed for some time. Something quite unexpected has come up; in addition to the normal workload, I've had extra stress lately in a position that opened within my company I had to try and apply for, and it'll likely relocate me about 700 miles very soon depending on how it all works out. I'm not sure how it'll all shake out or when it'll all get settled, but I feel that my time on Wikipedia is going to be limited on that for a little while. On the plus side, it looks like TheTimesAreAChanging has picked up on it quite a bit, so hopefully that will help to get Dreamcast to GA status in the meantime, and I hope this doesn't mean the review has to be closed because of this. I'll check as I can and do as much as I can, but it'll be a struggle to keep up for a while because of real life events. Thanks for understanding. Red Phoenix let's talk... 01:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case: Indrian, please offer feedback on "Competition and decline", but perhaps you should wait a few days to review "Game library", which I still am planning to change substantially.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


Kalinske has made several contradictory statements on the proposed "Sega-Sony hardware system", including that it preceded Sony's ill-fated collaboration with Nintendo. Although I consider Harris' account the most credible, Travis Fahs recently told me via email that the talks with Sony occurred after SGI was rejected by Sega of Japan. Fahs and Harris are otherwise on the same page, and Fahs got Harris in touch with Kalinske in the first place, so I consider this contradiction worthy of note—not that Wikipedia is necessarily the place to resolve it. Fahs was able to provide an excerpt from his interview with Kalinske, which IGN did not want to pay for in its entirety, but could not find the audio or transcript of his interview with Stolar (on the off-chance it might have been useful for the Dreamcast article). Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you help me out?Edit

Hello again, Indrian. I am turning to you because feedback on the latest Sega Saturn FAC has slowed considerably. Despite your assistance to Red Phoenix and myself in examining the credibility of conflicting sources, you are not directly a major contributor to the article, and as such could review it. I am not that familiar with Wikipedia etiquette on such matters, so perhaps your promoting the page to GA explains your desire to leave this FAC to the broader community? Even if you would not like to add your opinion to the FAC, I would appreciate any advice in terms of what (if anything) else I could do to attract additional input or improve the article further. While the first FA nomination and (in my opinion) the GA promotion were both premature in retrospect, recent changes—additional information on the significance of Virtua Fighter and the Saturn's peculiar quadrilateral rendering system, corrections to the inaccurate Sega financial data, more reliable U.S. sales numbers for the PlayStation and the Saturn by the end of 1998, and a great quote from Yukio Futatsugi regarding the Saturn's limited 3D capabilities (more of a discovery, if I may say so, than the Suzuki quote which is a popular Internet message board meme)—have increased my confidence that Sega Saturn should be Featured. In any event, thanks for your consideration. I can't determine how closely you watch this or any other pages on your Watchlist, of course, but I was in a rush near the end of the Dreamcast GAR to add as much material as possible because I really do value your critical eye, both as a keen observer and a copy editor. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

  • You have guessed correctly that I tend to avoid FA nominations of articles I promoted to GA because I fear I may be too close to them. Also, since I already did a painstaking review for GA, I worry that I will not have enough feedback for the delegates to take my supports seriously (though, in this case, I realize the article has changed a lot since that review). In this case, however, I will make an exception, because it would be a complete shame if such a great article fails to be promoted due to a lack of interest. I will try to complete a review later today. Indrian (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    Real life has gotten in the way of my editing recently, too, but you may want to declare your intention to review the article to prevent the FAC from being declared completely inactive. Thanks for your consideration,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Global accountEdit

Hi Indrian! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Automatic undoing of all editsEdit

Your automatic undo of all edits by this users is not really appropriate, in most of the articles I've looked at the edits are perfectly acceptable. Your removal of content without checking it looks like vandalism, especially considering the number of pages and the size of the changes. Regardless of these perhaps being good faith, you should check them and not assume they are all bad edits - having to check your undo's is no different to having to check their edits.SephyTheThird (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:Banning all edits made by a banned user may be reverted without explanation and without regards to the three-revert rule. This user is known for making many edits in quick succession that distort the cited sources and are often inaccurate. As checking all of his literally hundreds of edits for accuracy is impractical, mass reversion, which is allowed under policy, is the only logical course. Kindly refrain from labeling valid edits as vandalism and interfering with a community consensus to remove this editor's harmful edits from Wikipedia. Indrian (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, if you are interested in more information on the Jagged 85 problem, I would point you to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Evidence, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Recent evidence, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Computer Games Evidence, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup. Indrian (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
and I'm equally free to restore valid content regardless of this. Hiding behind not needing to give a reason doesn't make th removal of all content the correct decision.come on, on of the edits was almost entirely date formatting.SephyTheThird (talk) 06:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
No one is hiding behind anything: Jagged has flat out misused sources on dozens of occasions. Look through the evidence pages linked above to see some examples. A community consensus evolved that none of his work can be trusted. You see, many of his edits look reasonable until you go to the source and realize it does not say what he claimed. Of course not every edit he made was erroneous in this way, but we cannot assume good faith in his case, hence the ban and cleanup task force. Unless you actually go back to the sources themselves, please refrain from re-adding any of his material to the project. Obviously, you are welcome to make your own edits backed up by sources; I certainly have no problem with that. Indrian (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
given that I only edit VG articles when they cross over with anime articles, and even then only minimally, I don't have to get involved with VG politics. However when someone removes 600char from one of my priority articles with such a vague edit summary I tend to look further. If you want to remove his edits, that's your perogative on VG articles, but then it's also down to you to use whatever is possible, from the diffs not all of the content is about interpretations. Surely come of the content should be readded. Just be more careful when dealing with non VG edits and you won't attract this sort of attention.. SephyTheThird (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate you don't necessarily know the full background, SephyTheThird, but Jagged_85 is the most damaging editor I have ever come across. The problem is that Jagged adds so much material which is apparently well-referenced that it takes hours/ days/ weeks to check all the references he gives; and there are errors in a lot of the referenced claims which Jagged makes. It is simply impractical to check every single edit. Feel free to add back material you can vouch for yourself, but it is not a good idea to leave Jagged_85's material in, or you will be leaving material in which is not supported by references, often confuses the most important part of the encyclopedia article, and is frequently flat-out wrong. To take one of the most recent examples, the Jagged IP sock edit said, re: Final Fantasy VII's support of the Playstation 2 because of its CD-ROM, "as a result of the high quantity of memory storage required to implement the motion data, only the CD-ROM format would suit the project's needs". Do you understand what is meant by motion data? I don't. The suggestion seems to be that this is something to do with the 3d graphics, but if you read the source, what it actually says is "only CD media was able to facilitate more than 40 minutes of FMV movies". So it was the decision to have a lot of cut-scene movies in Final Fantasy which pushed them away from Nintendo catridges and towards the Playstation 2 CD-ROM. "Motion data" is at best meaningless, and at worst downright misleading, if people take it to refer to the graphics rather than the cut-scenes.
This is not even a particularly bad example. Read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Computer Games Evidence for endless examples where Jagged_85 made incorrect claims about the ground breaking graphics and sales figures for his favourite games. He makes far too many errors for his edits to be allowed to stand. Please only put Jagged_85 edits back in if you can personally state that you have checked every single claim and every single reference that you are adding back in. --Merlinme (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 30 JanuaryEdit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of video games considered the best, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PC. 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) 08:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


Hey there. Thanks for handling sockpuppetry and whatever other abuse. I see that you deleted this contribution, which seems to have been an otherwise admissible (quality, accuracy, etc) contribution. But we can't let abusers in. So the correct course of action would be for me to rewrite the same idea under my own copyright, right? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine. Just make sure that any sources from the original edit actually contained the claimed information, as the biggest problem we had with this user is that he would add "sourced" information that was not actually included in the cited source. Indrian (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@Indrian: We got lucky this time, because this was an exquisite source! But I understand salting the earth of their footsteps! WP:DENY lol— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Fairchild Channel FEdit

If that's the case then please clarify the rest of the article as all I did was bring that section into compliance with the rest of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, apparently you reverted almost everything contributed by stating as reason "sock puppets of banned user", but you forgot to post a link to the evidence or any other background info on User_talk: Please fix this. On all affected pages if necessary. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The current state of shmup articlesEdit

Hello! You're invited to express your views about this topic on the discussion topic. Jotamide (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Any idea what happened with this?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Interesting, I had not been aware of that. The London Times claims that the Saturn was going to incorporate "Microsoft at Work," which was a short-lived attempt by Microsoft to create a standard that would make office devices like fax machines Windows compatible. Seems an odd choice for a game console if that's true. After the announcement of the Microsoft-Sega partnership in January 1994 and a couple of straggling articles in February, its never mentioned in the press again. My guess is that if it was going to incorporate Microsoft at Work, then the plans were probably dropped after Microsoft basically abandoned the whole program. Interesting that the Microsoft-Sega partnership goes back even farther than most people realize. Indrian (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Computer SpaceEdit

Hi Indrian, regarding this - just wondering if you can clarify where you found out that the information was wrong, I cited a published book and info to the contrary would of course be interesting. Sam Walton (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Gene RoddenberryEdit

Hi I note that Talk:Gene Roddenberry/GA1 has been open for 21 days with no progress. If you're busy now (it happens), I could take it over for you. But if you're intending to start the review in the next couple of days, no worries. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

On request, I have taken over the review. Regards SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 SeptemberEdit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 NovemberEdit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It's been about a year...Edit

32X 800,000 from the collected works? Is that going into the 32X article soon? I don't have the book so I don't feel confident writing in the source even though I know you have it.--SexyKick 23:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oh wow, forgot all about that. I'll try to take a look at it this weekend. Thanks. Indrian (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I know we all mean well and want what is most complete, accurate, and best. If there's a silver lining here, it's that we don't have to use the 40 million number anymore, and can have a higher understanding. I am still half excited about that, despite the argument going on. I'm going to get some sleep.--SexyKick 23:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Here's the quote I would put in the |quote= thing. |quote=We had an inventory problem. Behind the scenes, Nakayama wanted us to sell a million units in the US in the first year. Kalinske and I said we could only sell 600,000. We shook hands on a compromise - 800,000. At the end of the year we had managed to shift 600,000 as estimated, so ended up with 200,000 units in our warehouse, which we had to sell to retailers at a steep discount to get rid of the inventory.--SexyKick 04:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!Edit

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) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Dragon Quest IIEdit

At your convenience, it is ready for another look :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Atari Lynx salesEdit

Do you have any comments you'll like to make on Lynx's talk page about Retro Gamer magazine 129? Just in case this source is brought up time and again, I've made a section there. « Ryūkotsusei » 19:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Knight Lore/archive1Edit

Hey Indrian, wanted to check back on whether you'll have a chance to swing back around to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Knight Lore/archive1 in the near future czar 15:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Crystal ToolsEdit

Hey Indrian! I am hunting for a top quality GA reviewer, and I thought of you! I have a short GA this time, wanted someone to put it through the wringer. Should be able to clean up to a GA with some notes and guidance. Let me know if you are interested/have time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Sure, I would be happy to have a look. Indrian (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I did some fixes! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Last one downEdit

If you'd like to finish off reviewing the early video game history article series, the last one, Computer Space, is now at GAN! --PresN 01:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be my pleasure. Indrian (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Game Engine LoveEdit

Hey, want to give one last game engine article some GA Review love? I nominated Luminous Studio for GA, and was looking for a high quality reviewer. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Corrections are all done! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Wolfenstein 3D/GA3Edit

Indrian, I wasn't sure whether you'd seen that PresN had addressed the issues you raised in your review. Best, BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


I'm not bothered in the slightest by the WhatCulture cite in Space Harrier having been removed, but why is WC considered an unreliable source? sixtynine • speak up • 17:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  • It was not the reliability, but the notability I objected to. Lots of websites these days drive user engagement with lists of this and that, so one author picking a few old Sega franchises and calling them ripe for a revival did not seem a particularly useful way to gauge the game's influence or popularity. Indrian (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Interesting, I'll keep this in mind for future "reception" edits. I discovered that WhatCulture has quite a ton of these throwaway lists when I worked on Mortal Kombat articles last year. sixty9 • speak up • 22:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

 Hello, Indrian. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

 Hello, Indrian. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Issues about Firefly (TV series)Edit

I started a discussion: Talk:Firefly (TV series)#Re-evaluating FA status. I invite you there to discuss how to improve the article. --George Ho (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You might have forgottenEdit

Hey, you might have forgotten but you started a GA review at Talk:Theme Hospital/GA2 but did not discuss it further. If you are having trouble or are busy, I can help in reviewing the article. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Which banned user at Drum machine?Edit

I am interested to know which banned user you were referring to here. If the person is banned then I will help stop the IPs from making any changes. However, the edits look constructive to me. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

  • User:Jagged 85. He was banned after two editing sprees, one involving Muslims and scientific history and one involving video games, in which he grossly misinterpreted sources and added tons of inaccurate information pushing non-Western "innovations" that never actually occurred. The problem with Jagged is that, while not all of his edits are incorrect, he can make hundreds of changes in a week that have a cumulatively harmful effect and it's impossible to keep up with fact-checking him because you actually have to read every source he cites to make sure it has not been misused. When a technology article is suddenly hit by a flurry of edits in the 86 or 109 IP range adding sourced information on non-Western (usually Japanese these days) subjects, that's Jagged come back, which he does every few months. Indrian (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Okay, thanks for the info. I will help get rid of the problems introduced by this guy. Binksternet (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
      • What do you think about Special:Contributions/ Same guy? Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        • That is an awful lot of edits in a short time, which fits the pattern, but they are almost entirely on topics Jagged has never shown an interest in before. It bears watching, but I'm not sure. Indrian (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Description Of Change when madeEdit

You've modified 'History_of_computing_hardware_(1960s%E2%80%93present)' to remove the references to Busicom in the development of the Intel 4004. Apologies: I undid this, wrongly recalling the 'Datapoint and the 8008' story as the 'Busicom and the 4004' story. You've restored your edits so all's well that ends well (until that's been checked by users anyway). In the meantime, please don't put "Sock puppet of banned user" on all your changes, it explains nothing even though it may be hilarious to a tiny group. Thanks :-) ToaneeM (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Console gameEdit

Hi Indrian, thanks for the edits to the. Console Game article, great to see it getting some attention.

A quick question regarding this edit

The edit description states the same as what was removed, that none of the games were arcade ports. Maybe it's a wording issue? CrimsonFox talk 06:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC) CrimsonFox talk 06:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I think you misread my summary, which was admittedly convoluted. The article said every game before 1976 was a ball-and-paddle game. Most of the Odyssey games from Roulette to Simon Says to States to Invasion were not ball-and-paddle variants. Indrian (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup that explains it, sorry for the confusion! CrimsonFox talk 06:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

kitty box adapterEdit

Hi Indrian, this is a real product from a REAL Company paying taxes. Not a gray market product and available around europe. see . We are currently producing a larger quantity of it as the demand is quite high in the community. The RGB adapter the second product was sold over 100 times within a few month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retron1970 (talkcontribs) 14:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Magnavox OdysseyEdit

I saw that you removed my link to a future Don Emry page. I respectfully disagree with your assertion that he's not important enough to have his own page. He was the very first video game tester and developed four games for the Magnavox Odyssey, the first video game system. His important to the development of the first video game system makes him a figure of interest. My intention is to write his article myself.Dastari Creel (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Hellow, i removed the homebrews informations on the Magnavox Odyssey page added by Dastari Creel. Do you agree with this ? or do you think it should be re-added, at least in the "Legacy" section ? regards. --Archimëa (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Jagged 85 sockpuppetsEdit

Hi Indrian, Phediuk here. I hope you are well. I am wondering what the policy is regarding banned user Jagged 85's many sockpuppets on the various video game history articles, as you've probably had more dealings with him than anyone. For the last couple of weeks, I have been attempting to clean these articles up--see Action role-playing game, Third-person shooter, Open world, etc.--but I have been resisted at every turn by his army of anonymous IPs, which continually attempt to insert poor and/or misrepresented sources into the articles in order to "counter" the ones I've added. He also tends to couple this addition of sources with removal of reliable sources. His persistence is, frankly, hard to believe. Every single one of his edits--literally, every single one--is devoted to promoting Japanese games while downplaying Western ones. I don't think he will ever quit, he's just going to keep harassing me in the hopes that I give up and leave, at which point he'll start putting in his bogus sources again. Can I just revert his stuff on sight? It is extremely time-consuming to check every single one of his edits to correct the inevitable misrepresentations, falsehoods, and sneaky additions/deletions.

Thanks for your time. Phediuk (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Phediuk, I appreciate all the work you have been doing recently to clean up some of these genre pages that Jagged has caused great harm to through his bad editing practices. Looking at the edits on the three pages you highlighted, I am not convinced these are actually by Jagged. The IPs appear to be outside his usual range, and they do not appear to be cutting as wide a swath through Wikipedia as he normally does. Furthermore, I have found that Jagged's IP editing tends to be non-confrontational: that is, if someone removes his material he rarely tries to put it back. Certainly though, if the info being restored is misusing sources, I think its fair to revert on site, and you can always go to the video game wiki project if you need more bodies or some admin help. Feel free to point out any problems to me directly as well. I am not an admin, but I can at least provide additional reverting support as needed. Good luck! Indrian (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Indrian. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Sonic Team extended?Edit

Hi Indrian. I wanted to chime you really quick because I was wondering if you might be able to provide some more insight on Sonic Team. I did a little research into the suggestion you had made at the Video Games Wikiproject talk a couple of weeks ago, and turned up evidence in Japanese that suggests you were 100% right - I found an issue of Sega Saturn Tsūshin from 1996 referring to Yuji Naka's team as CS3 in 1996, then an episode issue of Famitsū DC in 1998 that calls Naka's team "R&D #8". Both had some form of "Sonic Team" or "Sonic's Team" in Japanese in the quotation. (It's important to note I don't speak or read a word of Japanese; I found some leads to PDFs of these magazines, then used Google Translate on my phone on it to sort of make out what it says). I also found an Edge article from October 2000 when the Sega studios were separated and it was basically an introduction for each one, including Sonic Team. Naka, in that article, was interviewed and stated "Sonic Team" was just a team name in 1991, but felt the brand really formed in 1996 with NiGHTS. No mention of "AM8" anywhere in here; but I can see where it's been misinterpreted because of the "R&D 8" it was for a while.

What I wanted to know from you: does this all sound accurate? After my FAC for Sonic X-treme is done, I think I'd like to weed out the inaccuracies in Sonic Team and Sega Technical Institute and get them to be good solid articles. Thanks in advance for your assistance; I hope that someday we can collaborate again to make incredible articles. Red Phoenix talk 00:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018Edit

  Please do not attack other editors, as you did at List of best-selling Nintendo Entertainment System video games. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Do not attack others by calling them "vandal" just because you don't agree with the edits and are trying to excuse your edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That was not an attack, but a hypothetical truth as part of piece of poignant advice. Not only were you actually wrong with your needless deletion, and not only were you the one actually edit warring, but you were trolling the edit messages as a faux conversation medium. You are at the point of being blockable for this WP:3RR. BTW, make an account. — Smuckola(talk) 00:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Is it a sockpuppet?Edit

Hi. In this edit, are you saying that this person is a sockpuppet? If so, has this edit been reported to WP:SPI as such; has the user been previously identified and banned as such? I guess I should rewrite the content so as to not accredit sockpuppets. Because those are WP:VGRSes, though I'm not going to take one interviewed collector's advice alone on the claim that this is the first game ever with a "damsel in distress" theme, but it is probably easier to say that it's Nintendo's first. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 00:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi, I appreciate the inquiry. The edit was almost certainly made by a long ago banned user named Jagged 85 who had a history of making unsubstantiated claims often designed to over-emphasize non-Western achievements. He first did this in a bunch of science related articles before turning attention to video games. The pernicious part of his editing was that he nearly always sourced everything, meaning a casual look at one of his edits would not find anything wrong, but he completely misinterpreted those sources to push erroneous positions not contained within the sources themselves. He periodically returns to try pushing some of the same edits again. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Computer_Games_Evidence if you are interested in learning more. Sheriff has been a target of his before, and you can see from this diff that he has used that 1UP article before to push a narrative of dual-joystick innovation for Sheriff that is unwarranted. He edits from a broad range of IPs, so an SPI would not be that helpful. He generally does not come around anymore, but occasionally pokes his head out to make a test edit or two, presumably to see if someone notices. At this point, just about all his favorite pages to edit are on my watchlist, so I generally catch him. Indrian (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
lol "paving the way". Ok, I guess I'll rewrite it because those sources are premium for a subject that's now only known for being unknown ;) — Smuckola(talk) 21:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
OK Maybe youd like to review my recent edit for accuracy and correctness on this obscure and minimalistic subject. It'd help a bit if I'd played it so I should hook up a Dualshock 4 or Wii U Pro Controller to MAME, I guess. — Smuckola(talk) 07:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sonic Team/AM8Edit

Hi, Indrian. I wanted to ask you about this diff you made to the Sonic Team page. I'm not opposed to it, but I did want to seek your opinion, as this was my attempt to try and explain the name in retrospective sources without outright calling them AM8, which we know they were not. (Interestingly, as you review United Game Artists, you'll find I found a period-based source calling them AM8, but not AM9, which they were sometimes called - if you need I can link you to a scan of that source when you get to the review). Since it's all basically OR that we're saying it's not AM8 just because there's no source that explicitly says AM8 is a lie—like the cake—is there another way of stating it that might be better, or is it best to just leave it all out and explain it to any editors who try to add it back in? Thank you in advance for your input. Red Phoenix talk 07:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Quotes from "History of Sonic the Hedgehog"Edit

Hi Indrian. I'm working on Sonic Team next, and I know we had a talk about there being quotes from The History of Sonic the Hedgehog book about Naka and Ohshima teaming up in 1990. Do you have the book and some quotes from it? I'd at least like to know what I could add and cite into the article about when the team really began, and if I may be honest, I'd really rather not pay the $10 to get a copy of the book just to cite it here. Let me know what you can do. (An FYI as well, I'm thinking of doing a massive collaboration project on Sega sometime in the near future). Thank you, Red Phoenix talk 16:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no rush. Sorry for troubling you, but it looks like I didn't do all my homework first and forgot to read Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) which looks like it has a lot of this already. I'll start there. Thank you, Red Phoenix talk 20:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. Sorry I did not respond earlier, I have been busy. I can provide additional quotes if needed. Indrian (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

A better approach, I suggestEdit

...since "Yeah, no" is not only poor-intelligent, but it is not even a strong argument to put up your point on one thing. Or you explain, or I am perfectly legitimate to rollback. Hope I've been clear. Lone Internaut (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Too many articles on here to go into detail on all the reverting of strange edits that show up, but since you asked (mostly) nicely: Amiga shooters were a dime a dozen and a real hit in the home computer market in late 1980s Europe was 100,000 copies or so. Menace and Blood Money were neither innovators nor big hits and their impact on subsequent important titles was negligible. Low fits the bill nicely. Nothing personal about that; they are solid games from a competent developer. Indrian (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, it's just that seeing that "Yeah, no" after the fact that I put a bit of reasoning behind my changes... just got me by surprise. I didn't mean that I like these games so I want things as I want them. It's just that I respect them even if I wasn't even around when they came out. While you're right about the Amiga ones, still I think "Mid" is a bit poor for Quake III or Unreal Tournament. I mean, they are seminal shooters that catalized the arena subgenre, sold tons of copies and they are way too important for the FPS genre. It's true that today FPS arena lead to nothing, but still their importance cannot only be relative to today; ofter they appear in "best games ever" lists. And speaking about Limbo as "High"... shouldn't that importance level be taken by Braid, instead? Lone Internaut (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


It didn't distress me, but I was surprised at your edit summaries chez Berlioz "compound verb no comma". I looked the style guides on my shelves (Fowler, Gowers, Crystal, and the Guardian and Economist ones, which are usually sound), and nowhere did I find anything on this point. (I don't positively say it isn't there, but I certainly didn't see it.) I see from the various online style guides that the AmEng sites make something of a fetish about this point, but I don't think, though I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong, that there is any firm rule on this point in BrE. That said, the changes don't bother me. But I thought I'd just raise the point about British usage. Interested to know your thoughts. Tim riley talk 19:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  • You have indeed sussed out my nationality through this comma usage rule. I admit I was unaware the British authorities took a different view. I will trust your judgment on whether or not to revert those particular changes. Indrian (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


Now that the storm appears to have blown itself out, I wanted to thank you for your input and for your approach. For what it's worth, I agreed with every word that you wrote. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Indrian. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Another early VG GAN for you if you wantEdit

Finally got around to doing Star Trek (1971 video game), if you want it. --PresN 13:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

About the recent deletion in Video gaming in JapanEdit

Hi, I moved the content added by that user to the talk page so it can be verified. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


Indrian, just a note that the nominator has addressed all of the requests made in your review so far, so this is ready for the next round. Thanks for taking this one on. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for noticing my edit. I'm surprised I didn't manage to notice that there was already a subheading for EA's aquisition, normally I double-check whether something is already in the article so I don't repeat the same information again. Clovermoss (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Indrian".