Talk:Pac-Man Championship Edition/Archive 1

Archive 1

Do not mass delete

Please do not mass delete entire sections of the article. That is considered vandalism. JAF1970 23:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. KieferSkunk explained the removal in the edit summaries. According to Wikipedia:Vandalism: "[…] significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism […] where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Scope of information for more information on what was referred to as "game-guide material". Dancter 00:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wholesale deletions without real discussion is vandalism. JAF1970 00:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

For example: removing the fruit table? The other Pac-articles have them. The reason is flippant. Removing the "!" in the Achievement box? They're there because the actual achievements use the exclamation points. If you want to condense the gameplay changes, fine, but some of that "reasoning" was making changes for the sake of making changes. Oh, and exists. If you need a citation, post the fact citation. JAF1970 00:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that the fruit table should be removed from Pac-Man as well. IMO, it doesn't belong in that article any more than it does here. The reason I haven't removed it, however, is because some of the people who've gotten after me about including too much game-guide material in other articles have a tendency to ardently defend its presence there. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, since I'm being talked about here, let me put in my two cents: I do not vandalize articles. I explain in great detail (sometimes I have to cut down my explanations because the edit-summary line doesn't give me much room) what I'm doing with each edit and why I'm doing it. We are encouraged to be bold and make edits in good faith that we believe will help the overall article and the health of the wiki, as well as in adhering to WP policy.

That said, this round of edits that I made was in the interest of condensing the article to make it easier to read, relevant, and to cut down on items that constitute "game-guide" material. JAF, I'm a little surprised that you're getting after me about this, since you and I have sparred over game-guide material in the past and then have worked together to resolve issues like this in other articles. I'm no fan of the "no game-guide material" policy, but I'm trying to work in good faith to adhere to it since it is the currently adopted policy of WP. (I'm working on finding the specific policy link - I'll post it in a moment.)

I encourage discussion. Since I felt I was very clear on what I was doing and why, I didn't start a discussion on the edits - I just went ahead and made them. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss them. Feel free to start one, and we'll go from there. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand your concept of "Game Guide". It is not a strategy guide. This is basic information on the page that I wrote from scratch. Take a look at the Wiki Assessment Scale for a bit and see that you're supposed to include stuff so that researchers can take information from the page. People with no knowledge of the subject should come away with a good amount of it. Do you think removing the information helped? I think not. And again, maybe you should file protests in here, and learn to use the "". JAF1970 00:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, if I could have my way, we'd document all of the little quirks and Easter eggs that make every game unique and noteworthy, but these are not my policies. It's not my concept. "Elements such as strategies for defeating enemies, scoring details, lists of enemies and environments, and other information not essential to understanding the game as a whole, should be kept to a minimum." Does the fruit table help a first-time reader understand how to play Pac-Man?

As for citations: {{fact}} is not always appropriate when the disputed information is patently false. I did a search among official gaming sites, including Xbox.com, and could not find a single one that mentioned Pac-Man C.E. as being named Pac-Man 2. It may be thought of as such by the community, but that does not make it an official title. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, just as you felt I vandalized the article by making a lot of edits to it, I feel slighted by your mass reversion of all my edits without discussion as well. Please assume good faith unless you have good reason to think otherwise. I do it with you, and I'd ask no less from you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, WHAT quirks and WHAT Easter eggs?!?!?! For one, removing the descriptions of modes was BASIC INFO published by the devs A WHILE AGO. Stating "Championship Mode", "Extra Mode 1", "Extra Mode 2"... WHAT info does that IMPART?!?!?!?!?!?!?! JAF1970 00:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you go back and look at my edit for that particular part, you'll notice I said "unsourced". I did not say "patently false" here. "unsourced" means that, to my best judgement, it was information that did not have any basis from official sites. If you have an official site, put the information back and LINK IT in a reference! This is not difficult. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm contacting User:SeanMooney. This is out of hand. JAF1970 00:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you take a moment, calm down, and realize that I am not trying to attack you or your work. I am trying to help. Please stop making it seem like I'm trying to hurt things here, okay? I have a feeling SeanMooney will probably say something similar. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm perferctly fine. Just immensely confused and a little dismayed that you'd take a brick bat to the article. Hey, go to Carcassonne (board game) and work on that - remove all of the ways to play the game, the scoring tables, etc. See what sort of response you get there. JAF1970 01:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Here, take a look at this paragraph from the article that Dancter linked to above. This should clarify my use of a "brick bat": A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture.

Much of the information I removed or condensed does NOT have significant value to non-gamers and people completely unfamiliar with the game. A list of the fruits and their individual scores would not make a non-gamer any more likely to want to buy the game and play it than if they didn't know that information. Whereas, information about how the mazes change over time and seeing key gameplay differences from the original Pac-Man article would be far more likely to influence the reader. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Consequently, it is possible (and in fact a central strategy of the game) to "chain" power pellets for higher scores." I never put that in there. I thought you didn't want a "game guide". That sounds like strategy to me. I don't put strategy in my game articles, unless it's under a "Strategy" section, which I seldom put in the first place. JAF1970 01:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(REVISED REPLY) That also happens to be an essential gameplay element. That's why I put it in there. If it were not one of the main points of the game, I would not have included it. And note that I did not go into any more detail than that. I could have said "Ghosts score 400, 800, 1200 points and so on, up to a maximum of 3200 points, as long as a power pellet stays in effect." (In fact, some form of that statement WAS in the older version of the article before I revised it.) The power-pellet chaining element is one of the essential differences between this Pac-Man and the old Pac-Man. Specifics on what points the ghosts score are not. (Also: Note that I never claimed to be perfect. I make mistakes.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, puh-lease. That's rationalization for your own benefit. You can't delete some stuff saying it's "game guide" (such as just listing the game modes names and not their content) then include extraneous stuff claiming it's "essential" to understanding the game. Can't have your cake and eat it too. JAF1970 01:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, the scoring of ghosts is more informative than spewing out your ideas of strategy, which is, by the way, SUBJECTIVE INFORMATION. The scoring of ghosts and the fact the scoring is maintained when etc etc is OBJECTIVE INFORMATION. JAF1970 01:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead and get an admin involved if you like. We can sit here and argue over this all day, but frankly, I have better things to do with my time. Let me know when you're ready to drop that attitude of yours and talk reasonably. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You bet I will get Sean involved. He's part of the WikiVideoGames Project, and we've more or less been tag-teaming stuff. If I recall, he's a Brit, so my email probably reached him while sleeping. You go and do whatever you like. I'm going to wait for his mediation. JAF1970 01:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt to intimidate me. I will note it in my own report to the WP administrative staff when I have time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this specific edit: When I removed the name "Pac-Man 2" earlier, there WAS NO REFERENCE to that particular element. Now that there is one to a reputable source, I'm satisfied and will leave it in. Thank you for clarifying it. But... please, do your homework before you get snarky with me. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I await Sean. And by the way, your dictionary writing skills are lacking. Let me pick it apart for you:

Power pellets stay active for a set period of time (rather than shutting off when all ghosts have been eaten). Consequently, it is possible (and in fact a central strategy of the game) to "chain" power pellets for higher scores.

1. It's verbose and repetitive. 2. You use undefined colloquial terms ("chain"?). 3. There's no mention of how much the ghosts score.

Trust me, I went to Bronx High School of Science where the #1 thing they teach is research. Your edits are unjustified and sweeping, and basically made a hash of the article. JAF1970 01:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a point? I'd rather see you direct that energy into improving the article than defending yourself and attacking me. You're not doing yourself or your friend any favors by continuing to make me out to be the bad guy here. Now please, let's work together on this, okay? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There, happy? -_- — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't get too involved in this debate at the moment, as I am dealing with a death in my family right now and will be extremely busy most of this week. But after a quick look at the page, here are my thoughts:

• I don't think KieferSkunk meant anything bad or "vandalized" the page. Although I disagree with a few of his edits, they seem to have been in good faith. He even corrected a few of his own mistakes.
• Please understand that JAF worked very hard on this page adding almost all of the information and keeping it up to date. I think it's only fair that you should've discussed things first on the talk page before just suddenly removing a lot of information.
• You deleted the entire game modes/challenge modes section which is a crucial part of the game and one of the main differences in Pac-Man CE. Although you added some of it back elsewhere, it was far less informative, almost to the point of being useless. What does "Challenge Mode 2 (Dark, 10 minutes)" tell the reader? JAF's descriptions were better written and more informative to readers.
• My personal opinion is that the page was mostly fine before, only needing minor edits. It was not overly long and did not need very much condensing. It was formatted well and easy to read. It did not read like a game guide to me either - since the whole point of Pac-Man CE is to get the best possible score in the time limit, listing scoring details is necessary (as long as it's not overboard).

But whatever, instead of arguing over who is right and who is wrong, we should reach a consensus on how to improve the page. SeanMooney 03:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, and I'm sorry to hear about your family. My condolences. I'd like to clarify that I was not upset so much at the topic of the debate (my edits and which policies we should be following), as I was at the way I was being addressed. I felt that JAF was going beyond simply calling my edits into question and was both directly and indirectly accusing me of acting in bad faith, vandalizing the article, and attacking him and his work. I do not feel that I was, but I apologize if my wording and attitude made me seem as such.

It seems to be difficult to get everyone to agree on where that fine line is between too much information and too little. This is obviously a touchy subject for some. I am mainly upset at the way the discussion fell apart into what looked to me like a lot of grandstanding on both sides. I took some time to cool off and am ready to come back to the table and discuss things more calmly. I can only hope that JAF is willing to as well.

JAF: I understand you put a lot of effort into this article, and I appreciate that. It's the hard work of people like you that make Wikipedia great. Just understand that not everyone is going to agree on all points. We're all here for the same purpose: To make these articles as good and informative as possible. So like I said earlier, please don't be so quick to judge me and/or other people when we collide like this - we can discuss and resolve things reasonably and without resorting to personal attacks and insults. I apologize for my end of this, and I'd like to see this resolved peacefully. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Blue Ghost Needs fix

This allows the player to eat another pellet while the first one is still active, causing the ghosts to remain blue, resulting in progressively higher points per ghost. This is wrong. In any Pac-Man, you could eat another pellet while they were blue - but the effect was that the point scoring was reset. This is a clumsy and inaccurate way of saying it (my original article explained it quite clearly.) JAF1970 20:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(still annoyed at the way you promote yourself.) Geez. Just fix it and stop calling so much attention to how great you are, okay? :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "promoting" myself. I'm saying that because the way I had it was correct, and now I'm not sure how to rephrase it anymore with the way it is now. JAF1970 20:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree that your original wording was very clear at all. All it said was that it maintained the scoring level while power pellets were in effect. Only an experienced gamer familiar with the ins and outs of Pac-Man is likely to understand what that means. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks fine

Should be no real reason to update it without breaking news. JAF1970 03:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Scoring Details

I'd like to open up more discussion on scoring charts and details on this article (and related Pac-Man articles). Basically, as it stands now, JAF1970 and SeanMooney (two people who have contributed most of the original content of this article) believe that scoring details should be included in the article. From the debate above, Sean's reasoning is that the main purpose of the game is to score as many points as possible in a set time limit, so scoring details should be included so long as they don't go overboard.

Personally, I disagree with this rationale. I do not believe that a first-time reader who has never played Pac-Man C.E. will benefit from seeing an exhaustive list of fruits and their score values, seeing details about what points ghosts score, etc. Simply mentioning that the game has bonus fruits based on those of the original Pac-Man, each with larger score values, the dots can increase in score over time, and ghosts score progressively higher values as they're eaten, SHOULD be enough. It is usually up to the player to discover the scoring system and the essential strategies needed to achieve the highest score.

Basically, my argument is that the scoring details constitute material that is more appropriate for a strategy guide, and thus for one of the gaming-specific Wikis. I cite a reference to the CVGProj Guidelines in the debate above to support this position. I have also removed very similar content from other articles (see Galaga '88 for an example) with no objections, and I have previously had large amounts of such content removed under those guidelines. So I believe that having it here makes for an inconsistent application of the CVGProj guidelines.

I realize that such scoring details are included in other Pac-Man articles, including the original Pac-Man article. I disagree with their presence there as well - iconic as those fruits and ghost values have become among gamers and the industry, the details about them do not help a non-gamer understand the essence of Pac-Man as a whole. The list of fruits and the points per ghost are essentially minutae that would be more appropriate in a strategy guide.

So, I'd like to discuss this here, and to get more people involved if possible. I'll bring up a similar topic on Talk:Pac-Man as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you erase all the scoring details of other articles, too. (rolling eyes)

Right now, the article is fine. You remove any data, I'll undo it quickly. Period. JAF1970 01:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're declaring yourself the owner and protector of this content now? So much for being polite. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI: I am calling for consistent application of the policies and guidelines. If that means removing scoring details from all gaming articles, then that's what I'll push for. If we reach consensus in that direction, then I will help to update articles to that end as I'm able. If consensus is reached to leave the details in the article, then I will be arguing for their inclusion in all the other articles where they have been removed. Do you have a problem with that, Mr. JAF? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm declaring that this is not your article to do with as you please, and you're just attempting to remove the content that you were explicitly told not to remove by more than one person. Accept it, and move on. JAF1970 04:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

*ahem* I said reach a consensus, and if I recall, YOU were the one who got after me for not discussing things. Two people do not a consensus make, sir.

I am filing a request for mediation, because it is apparent that I cannot reason with you directly. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You've been mediated already:

“ My personal opinion is that the page was mostly fine before, only needing minor edits. It was not overly long and did not need very much condensing. It was formatted well and easy to read. It did not read like a game guide to me either - since the whole point of Pac-Man CE is to get the best possible score in the time limit, listing scoring details is necessary (as long as it's not overboard). ”

I'll have to bother Sean once more thanks to you about this. If you hate scoring references, you're going to be very busy on Wikipedia erasing all scoring references. Starting with board and card games as well as computer. Your heavy-handed editing is becoming tiresome. JAF1970 04:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

JAF, do you want people to discuss issues with you or do you not? You got after me for not surfacing issues when you claimed I was vandalizing this article. Sean also made the point that scoring details are "necessary". I disagree, and I am TRYING to get more opinions into this discussion than just yours, his and mine. As I said, two people to one does not mean there's consensus.

If you're going to claim that discussion should take place over differences of opinion on a matter, then stop shooting me down whenever I try to do exactly that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it's been discussed. You're simply not abiding by arbitration. JAF1970 05:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it has been discussed. There has been extremely little discussion from any objective, logical standpoint about why the scoring details should stay vs. why they should go. All that's been said of any substance (other than my arguments against) is that it's a game in which scoring plays a factor, and that the fruits are present in the original Pac-Man article. That's it. The rest has been this pointless yelling that you and I have been doing at each other. Yes, the opinions are currently 2 to 1 in your favor, but I do not agree that that counts as "arbitration", nor do I agree that it means consensus has been reached. There are hundreds of thousands of people who use Wikipedia every day, and I would like to solicit just a few more opinions before I'll consider the matter closed.

I am not making any edits regarding the scoring details at this time. I am asking for more discussion, and you are consistently shooting it down and insisting it does not need to be discussed. THAT, among other things, is why I have requested mediation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction: It's not been discussed to your satisfaction to the outcome you desire. You have a set mind on how you want this article to be, which is contrary to all other game articles, video game articles, and Pac-Man articles. I'm going to have to petition this article be completely locked if you persist in this. JAF1970 05:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I'm not satisfied with the level of discussion. Because aside from one comment from Sean, the only discussion has been from you. Yes, you're right - I have an agenda. I want to see the policies enforced equally and consistently across all articles that they govern. And your claim that my view is contrary to all other game articles is highly inaccurate, because I have seen the exact same type of scoring details DELETED from other game articles citing the policies I have cited here.

Good luck getting the article locked down. I doubt the administrators will go for that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You received moderation. You got your answer - which is no. "(still annoyed at the way you promote yourself.)" - quote by you above. How DARE you say that. I just checked your User page - my God, I've never seen someone promote themselves so badly. You actually have on the links people giving you testimonials (anecdotal evidence). And you call ME a self-promoter. "The fox is always the first to smell his own hole". On my page, I only put that I speak English. No more. I've worked on as many (if not more) articles than you have. Not only are you pushy, obstinate and unable to accept the word "no", but a hypocrite as well. Don't call anyone a "self-promoter". Ever. Again. JAF1970 15:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

JAF, if you have an issue with me personally, take it up on my Talk page, and keep article discussions on-topic. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(moved from below)

In other words, you didn't get the consensus you wanted, so you'll continue to try to campaign for your own ideas to be selected. Why can't you just leave the article be with the two people who did most of the work building it? JAF1970 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Because that is not the Wikipedia way. If you want to own the content of an article, go create your own wiki and set your own rules. I have made reasonable efforts to ensure that my work is in the spirit of improving the wiki, and has been within all policies and guidelines. I have made what I believed was a reasonable effort to improve the quality of this article, and you have taken it WAY too personally. You have gone from simply questioning my edits to attacking my personal character, and you are now actively BLOCKING discussion that may lead to a real consensus on an issue that needs clarification.

I have explained several times now that I am seeking more opinions on the scoring details issue. That does not mean I will stop at nothing to get my way - that means I do not accept your assertion that YOU and SeanMooney are the supreme authority on this topic. As I said before, several times, if a REAL consensus is reached that supports your position, I will be happy to accept that and will ask that the decision be factored into the project guidelines. I honestly don't see what your problem is with this, except that you are upset that I went and messed with your personal work. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just in case I wasn't clear last night, let me try stating this again so it's clear to anyone and everyone who might wade through all of this: I am calling for an open discussion among interested WP editors on whether or not scoring details such as the fruit table should remain in this article or moved to a gaming-specific Wiki. Currently, we only have three stated opinions about this matter on this Talk page - my own (remove them), JAF1970 (keep them) and SeanMooney (keep them). I am looking for a larger consensus, as I do not feel a 2-1 decision is enough to make a sweeping decision that potentially affects hundreds of articles. And I am looking for real discussion, and to see what people's reasons are for wanting to keep or remove these details. I believe that by arriving at a consensus, we can resolve the current apparent ambiguity that exists in the CVGProj guidelines, as I maintain they are not being equally and consistently applied to all articles within the scope of CVGProj.

Yes, it has been stated already, further above and in other article Talks, that Pac-Man includes the fruit table and other scoring details, and thus it sets a precedent for articles such as this one. I don't believe that that is a sufficient reason alone to keep the status quo. If we arrive at a consensus that such scoring details should stay, then I will be happy with the decision and will leave the articles as-is, and will push to have such details restored to other game articles where they were removed. If we arrive at a consensus to remove the scoring details, then I will work toward that end and will encourage others to do so as well. In either case, such a consensus can help to clarify what appears to be an ambiguous rule in WP policy and guidelines, and should help to prevent disputes such as this one in the future.

Please feel free to express your opinions here. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

How dare you move my response so casually? I'll repeat it:

In other words, you didn't get the consensus you wanted, so you'll continue to try to campaign for your own ideas to be selected. Why can't you just leave the article be with the two people who did most of the work building it? Don't move it to change the context of what I said and where. You want a public discourse, here it is.JAF1970 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

For the last time: User talk:KieferSkunk. Go there. Start a topic. Talk to me there. This is your last warning. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't like people editing your remarks, huh?

You move my responses around like you're an Admin, yet don't like people telling you your "topics" are the same request over and over? Goose, gander. We discussed it, including someone heavily involved in the WikiVG project. You make mass changes and deletes without discussing it. You agree to a decision by me and User:SeanMooney, a few days later, you decide you don't like it and try to break your agreement. JAF1970 21:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I did NOT agree to your "decision". I agreed that you two had valid points, and I admitted that SOME of my edits were imperfect, and that I was willing to compromise on them (like with the maze descriptions). I later tried to open some of those points up to discussion by presenting my own. EXACTLY what you told me I should have done in the first place. You are now personally attacking me, and the edit history on this Talk page will stand on record. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We have "valid points", but they don't deserve consideration. You post longwinded arguments, which are deflated by the simple fact that you're in the wrong. To requote Sean, "You deleted the entire game modes/challenge modes section which is a crucial part of the game and one of the main differences in Pac-Man CE. Although you added some of it back elsewhere, it was far less informative, almost to the point of being useless. What does "Challenge Mode 2 (Dark, 10 minutes)" tell the reader? JAF's descriptions were better written and more informative to readers. My personal opinion is that the page was mostly fine before, only needing minor edits. It was not overly long and did not need very much condensing. It was formatted well and easy to read. It did not read like a game guide to me either - since the whole point of Pac-Man CE is to get the best possible score in the time limit, listing scoring details is necessary (as long as it's not overboard)." You're still trying to do it. JAF1970 21:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You have only one point of support for your position. If it helps any, so do I for mine. You are not in a position to say whether a point deserves consideration, JAF - you are not an administrator, you are not the owner of this article's content, and you are not the leading authority on this topic. Neither am I, and I am not claiming to be. But you insist that I am wrong (and thus that you are right), and are completely unwilling to even discuss the issue. I guarantee that if someone else had brought up this exact same question, you would not have treated them with the level of hostility you have given me. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You claim you like mediation. That's untrue. You only like mediation when the people think you're wrong. You decided to make massive changes to distort the article, and Pac-Man CE is far more complex than Pac-Man. How many game modes does Pac-Man have, for instance? You entered an article that was only in need of some minor cleanup and removed whole sections of relevent game info. You did it without consideration, and only when people protested did you actually start to talk. When people told you you were wrong, you refused to accept it - or actually, you've admitted that you only pretended to accept it. Most adults would take the hint and move on. JAF1970 22:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things I'd like to point out here: Pac-Man CE technically only has one game mode, just like the original Pac-Man. (In fact, the original Pac-Man technically has two "modes" - 1-player and 2-player, though that's not really significant.) It's a single-player game using the same controls, the same ghosts, and generally the same strategies (eat dots, avoid ghosts, eat power pellets and then eat the ghosts, etc.) throughout. The only differences between the "modes" are the layouts of the mazes and dot patterns, the color of the maze, the time limit, and (in one case) the starting speed. Otherwise, the game is exactly the same in all its modes. Technically speaking, this defines individual levels, not game modes, regardless of the terminology used in the game. Contrast this with, say, "Endless Mode", "Timed/Score Attack", "Vs. CPU", "Puzzle", etc. in Planet Puzzle League - in that case, these are different actual game modes that have different methods of play.

Also, I'd like to point out that User:Andrevan has mentioned that consensus was already reached in support of removing scoring details from articles within the scope of CVGProj. See the Article Guidelines Talk page. It appears from the edit history that you confused Andrevan's edits with mine - he removed the Achievements list and fruit table from the article of his own accord - my only involvement in that particular edit was having asked for clarification on the guidelines themselves and pointing out this article and Pac-Man as examples. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 09:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Response from Potential Mediator

Hi! I am a generally jovial soul from the Mediation Cabal, here to respond to your MedCab request. After reading through this discussion, there are a few things I would like to point out. Please keep in mind that I don't really care how this turns out, so long as it's done amicably.

• As KieferSkunk states, a 2-1 decision is certainly not representative of consensus or real discussion. However, it doesn't look like anybody else is going to get involved unless you all bring friends, which would be a bit counterproductive. Speaking of which:
• JAF1970, you seem to consider Sean's (brief) input to be both "arbitration" (your word, not mine) and consensus-building. Please consider the following: mediation/arbitration/call the process what you will is ineffective if the mediator is not neutral. You yourself stated before Sean even arrived that the two of you had been, to quote you, "tag-teaming," so it's obvious that he wasn't neutral. Of course, it's possible that I misunderstood you, and you never meant to suggest that he qualified as a mediator, but I just wanted to point that out.

1. We were not "tag-teaming" this article. We're "tag-teaming" XBLA in general, basically running in the same circles. JAF1970 21:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Also, JAF, from your words it does appear that you're trying to exert ownership over this article.

You've asked Kiefer to leave the article to the two people who wrote the original version, and stated that "your" version was fine and did not need changes.

Nope. It's not "my" article. I never claimed ownership. I did mention my work on it, from scratch. I never stopped anyone from making changes. Ever. You might notice that from the article history. JAF1970 21:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You've also informed Kiefer of your intention to revert any changes he made, immediately.

Drastic changes. JAF1970 21:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly these statements were made a little while ago, but regardless they do indicate that you feel a certain degree of control over the article. Be careful of this- it can lead to irrational comments, and a lot of people who feel like they're in control of an article end up having their feelings hurt or simply become too invested in a dispute.

• WP:NOT states the following: "Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions or contain "how-to"s.
• This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.[3] If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at our sister project Wikibooks." It isn't up to me to decide whether or not the old version constituted a video game guide or a how-to, but I do need to bring that to the front of everybody's mind, because if the removed content was a how-to it was well within Kiefer's capacity to remove it.

Aha. The crux of the argument. There's nothing in what I posted that was a strategy guide - just information. All game pages have stuff like how many points something is. I never included stuff that Keiferskunk did - tidbits on how to play - which HE did, not I. What he wanted to remove was stuff that's in every board, card, and video game. Unless you'd like me to remove all of the data from, say Carcassonne (board game) which tells how many points each action scores. How about I just wipe away whole sections of Half-Life 2 which tells how many HPs enemies have? I'm sure that would be real popular.

There was nothing, repeat, NOTHING that was about strategy. If anything, KeiferSkunk attempted to include advice. Look at the initial edits he made. JAF1970 21:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems I've had with this whole debacle is that JAF was very quick to fixate on the initial mistakes that I made in my edits. Yes, I did include some references to game strategy, which I later removed or copy-edited to read less like a strategy guide (and would have likely done much more quickly and less begrudgingly had this argument not become as heated as it did). I never claimed to be perfect in my judgement, and admittedly, my initial edits may have been more brick-bat-like than necessary. However, I have a long history of correcting my own edits when I realize later that I misworded something, cut out too much information, added too much, etc.

That said, I feel that JAF's attacks on my character were mostly unwarranted, especially of the kind given above. Consistently pointing out that I added strategy-guide material while also preaching that we remove it, while ignoring the fact that I also corrected those initial mistakes he kept pointing out.

In any event, I do not believe that any of that is grounds for the hostility I've received over my call for consensus. (Still catching up - I just got home from a flight that took much longer than it should have.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is this: I'm happy to help you guys come to some sort of a compromise, but to be completely honest, I think policy is on Kiefer's side. JAF, you seem to be stuck on keeping your version of the article,

Nope. I just don't like seeing the article article turned into a confused, uninformative mess. JAF1970 21:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

while Kiefer quoted relevant policy when making the changes he did. 

He twisted it, and didn't keep to that policy. What he did was remove information, then included strategy guide himself - the stuff HE wanted to include. JAF1970 21:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You've also stated your intent to engage in revert warring if Kiefer does not leave the article to you and Sean. This violates several policies, and should you actually engage in revert warning, you could actually be blocked for vandalism, which would suck. You seem to be trying to force your point of view through pointing at Sean's comments and deeclaring a consensus- meantime, Sean 1) declared that he's not really going to get involved and 2) supported points that each of you had made, on top of which you just can't build a consensus by bringing in a friend and getting him to agree with you point blank. To quote Wikipedia:Consensus, "Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way" (see the section on "asking the other parent").

Again quoting Wikipedia:Consensus, "consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on a subject." I don't think you guys are going to be able to come to one so long as one of you feels like you own the article. --Moralis (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out Pac-Man - the fruit list is there - which includes points. Why was KeiferSkunk trying to remove it from the article as "strategy guide" stuff? JAF1970 21:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, KieferSkunk, it should be pointed out that while WP:NOT is policy, the article assessment instructions at Wikiproject:Video Games is not. --Moralis (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A B-class article: Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. Tell me, if someone was researching Pac-Man CE and saw all the removals, how would it help their research? JAF1970 23:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Moralis: I understand about the distinction between policy and guidelines. That is, in my opinion, one of the areas where ambiguity exists. But more to the point: The guideline I quoted has been inconsistently applied throughout the project - in my opinion, the fruit table and other scoring details in both this article and Pac-Man (and related articles) go against that guideline and are POSSIBLY in conflict with WP:NOT policy as well. Since it's a disputed topic and it's obvious that at least one person disagrees with me on this, I felt that calling for a vote and discussion was the best way to determine the outcome.

JAF: I've been working from the standpoint that a well-written game article (especially in improving one from B-class status) includes enough information for a casual reader to understand what the game is about, without being overwhelmed with details that they don't necessarily care about. The reader should be able to understand the jist of Pac-Man CE's controls, premise (what little there is in a game like this), the overall game mechanics, and noteable differences between this game and the one it was based on. Enough information to catch the user's interest and satisfy their curiosity about the game itself. We have other wikis that provide more detailed information for people who are interested in it, and personally, I'd like to see us link to those wikis more - that way, we can still provide all the scoring details and strategies in a place where it's more appropriate.

I should also mention that I think the current wording on the assessment scale leaves a lot of room for individual interpretation, and thus ambiguity and disagreement on how to apply and enforce it. I'm reluctant to suggest changes to it at this point because I'm currently embroiled in this dispute - perhaps when this has passed, you and I could both work together to improve the wording so it's easier for everyone to understand and work with? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but it is born from your original line of thinking, in which all information must be stripped down to the least coherent, cryptic entry. JAF1970 01:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

See, that is putting words in my mouth. That is making assumptions about my line of thinking based on your own point of view. That is insulting. That is why I called for mediation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(shrug) I posted the archived version of what you posted initially. And the thing is, it wasn't THAT well-thought out. Why post all that then have to severely rearrange what you posted? I think that speaks for itself, really. You shouldn't have leapt before you looked. JAF1970 03:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, if I could have magically looked into the future and seen the incredible mess that my edits would have caused, I would certainly have taken more precautions to avoid stepping on your toes. But y'know, I'm only human, JAF, and I do make mistakes. What you did was far beyond what was called for when another editor makes mistakes - you shoved my face in them and you kept on pointing them out for everyone to see even long after I'd gone and corrected them.

Moreover, I'm quite put off by the fact that you'd look at that initial edit, which was admittedly flawed, and tell everyone that I was deliberately trying to strip down the article into an incoherent mess. If you'd paid ANY attention to my edit summaries, my responses to you, my later edits to fix problems I introduced, etc., you'd see that that was not my intention or my aim, or even part of my line of thinking at all. So for you to go on and say that is incredibly insulting. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Here, an example

Which is better?

Pac-Man CE consists of six main "challenges", each with their own unique set of mazes and time limits[5]:

• Championship Mode: Regular Pac-Man CE gameplay, with a timed limit of 5 minutes.
• Challenge Mode 1 (Patience and Reward Course): The mazes alternate between an abundance of power pellets and no power pellets. Timed limit of 10 minutes.
• Challenge Mode 2 (The Darkness Course): Only the area directly around Pac-Man and the Ghosts is visible and the maze walls are completely hidden. Timed limit of 10 minutes.
• Extra Mode 1 (The Freeway Course): Starts at near-top speed and features many long, horizontal tunnels. Timed limit of 5 minutes.
• Extra Mode 2 (The Manhattan Course): A set of mazes inspired by the streets of Manhattan. Timed limit of 10 minutes.
• Extra Mode 3 (The Overall Course): A mix of all other modes. Timed limit of 10 minutes.

Or this:

• Championship Edition (Blue, 5 minutes)
• Challenge Mode 1 (Green, 10 minutes)
• Challenge Mode 2 (Dark, 10 minutes)
• Extra Mode 1 (Light blue, 5 minutes, starts off fast)
• Extra Mode 2 (Grey, 10 minutes)
• Extra Mode 3 (Orange, 10 minutes)

Does the first version indicate "strategy guide"? Does it honestly tell people how to play? Or is it simply information that tells someone who doesn't know the game what is involved? Does the second version truly help a reader? And if you prefer the second version, why even say "Blue" or "green"? That's useless "guide" talk, isn't it?

According to Quality scale, which belongs? JAF1970 21:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who's never touched the game, I would suggest that both of those examples could justifiably be removed using a WP:NOT rationale. While, as a gamer, I appreciate that it is useful information, it's information a gamer should expect to find at a gaming site, such as GameFAQs. A description of each individual level or gameplay mode goes beyond what is necessary.

I would like to apologize if I've placed too much of the blame for this dispute on you. Nonetheless, the words you chose above and the way you stated your case certainly gave off the impression of article ownership, and I still feel that the content removal was justified per WP:NOT (though not, perhaps, the content that it was replaced with, which was in the aforementioned case less useful and less encyclopedic than the original). --Moralis (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not have "article ownership" disease - KieferSkunk does. He went along and changed the page before mediation was rendered. Doesn't that tell you something? JAF1970 23:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

With regard to my very first edits to this article, again, I'll point out that I was open to discussion, and when it was called for, I agreed to it. But since then, my attempts to open discussion have been met with open hostility. (I suspect that JAF is confusing another user's edits with mine in the "before mediation was rendered" argument - a different user who has not had any involvement in this dispute said he removed the fruit table from this article.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

And he changes the page the way he likes it -- when mediation hasn't even been resolved

AND NOW HE EDITS THE PAGE THE WAY HE LIKES IT BEFORE OFFICIAL ARBITRATION WAS RENDERED!!!!!!! I think this is PROOF ENOUGH of his attitude towards Wikipedia. He's right, everyone else is wrong, and he's going to do WHAT HE LIKES even before any decisions have been made. I think that alone proves my point. JAF1970 23:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What edit are you referring to, JAF? If it's something more recent than yesterday at about 2:30pm PDT, it hasn't involved me (I was offline after that point up until now - I've been travelling). And my most recent edits to this article have been for minor fixes, including one that reduced redundancy and to which I specifically asked for discussion before making the edit. Since I received no response, I believed I was within my right to make the change. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Other "strategy guides"

• Asteroids_(arcade_game) includes point references. Do you want to remove all point references from here?
• Donkey_Kong_(video_game) includes point references and full level descriptions. Should be removed, right?

JAF1970 23:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If that's what the consensus comes to, then yes. I don't think we need to know the specific point values of each individual item in the game, nor do the descriptions of the boards in Donkey Kong need to be more than one or two lines long. (For instance, and without having read the article yet, I'd be perfectly fine with something like "Board 1 consists of girders and ladders, and Donkey Kong rolls or throws barrels at the player. Board 2 has straight girders and plugs.", etc. Of course, exact wording would take more time to get right, and probably multiple edits among multiple editors. However, I would consider "Board 1 has pink girders, two hammers, and the player must jump over all barrels, which score 100 points each, or 300 points if the player jumps over two barrels simultaneously" to be overly detailed.)

There's a fine line between too little and too much information. Sometimes it's hard to agree on exactly where that is. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to know the specific point values of each individual item in the game, nor do the descriptions of the boards in Donkey Kong need to be more than one or two lines long. Then you don't have an encyclopedia article. You have a useless article for research, and people will not go to Wikipedia. Baby, bathwater. Look at other game like contract bridge. Are you going to eviscerate that, too? I think that, right there, proves you're absolutely wrong. JAF1970 13:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You keep asking me the same questions, over and over again. When I say you scream until you get your way, this is exactly what I'm talking about. At this point, you've gone beyond just making your point and are now well into the "I'm going to ignore all the consensus, all the rules and all the guidelines that other people on Wikipedia have spent months, if not years, forming, just because I'm a researcher and I know better." — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

KieferSkunk's methods

He's in the Pac Man talk page trying to get rid of the points and fruit table, etc. Let's count now:

• 1. He makes large changes, claiming he's trying to get rid of strategy guide stuff, but includes tips and hints.
• 2. He gets angry and cites policies, but when he goes for mediation, he goes ahead and changes what he likes there.
• 3. He lobbies other pages to change so he can justify changes in another.

Check this out: User:KieferSkunk

As an example, the Star Fox Command article has recently been undergoing "renovation" that has already undone a LOT of my work, and promises to continue doing so. The reason for this is supposedly because "Wikipedia is not a game guide". Now, yes, I agree that Wikipedia should not be a literal copy of the instruction manual or strategy guide for a game, but there's a significant difference between documenting a game (and especially what makes that game noteworthy) and writing a strategy guide about it. And I believe the people who are setting and enforcing the Wikipedia policies on these topics are both going too far in doing so, and are working at cross-purposes to the WP community. Too often, a large amount of legitimate work is deleted just because one person (usually a sysop) "thinks" it's not necessary. So far, nebulous policies such as NPOV fail to account for this.

Sound familiar?

I think you're far too impassioned here. It would do everyone good if both of you took a step back and left this article alone for a while. Give yourselves time to calm down before you try to move forward, or you'll just end up bickering forever.

Also, a suggestion: using lots of bold text, caps, and extreme amounts of punctuation does not help you convey emotion, but it does tend to bias users against you, as it makes you seem irrationally emotional. So does using section headers like "KieferSkun's methods," as though he's making some sort of intentional effor to undermine the article. My point is this: don't let yourself become this wrapped up in the situation. It makes it a lot harder to resolve disputes when they do arise. --Moralis (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Moralis: I agree. I've had about a day and a half to step back and collect my thoughts on this issue, and I appreciate seeing discussion ongoing while I've been away.

JAF: At this point, the message you quoted above is a bit out of date, with respect to my stance on the issue. I left you a reply on that in my Talk page, but to summarize: I agree with another of Moralis's comments, where I see from a non-gamer's perspective how the details I wanted to keep in the article would be virtually meaningless to a non-gamer. All that information would do is clutter the page, and likely cause a casual reader to skip over it because the page was too lengthy. I agree it's certainly possible (and easy) to swing too far in the other direction, but I know that my prior stance was much further off from the accepted consensus among CVGProj editors than my current one is. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 09:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

JAF: Actually, thank you very much for pointing out that paragraph. I didn't realize how hypocritical I must have appeared when I had that still posted on my user page and no explanation for my seemingly sudden change of heart on the matter. I've added a new post to that topic explaining my thoughts and giving a general apology to anyone who felt slighted by my statements and attitudes. I invite you to read it. Basically, my thoughts have changed over time, but I never said anything about it there because I had all but forgotten about my original statements. (I don't spend much time on my own user page, as you can probably tell - usually just enough time to add articles to my list of contributions.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 10:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)