User talk:AbbotKinneyDude

Conflict of interest, paid editing, and neutral point of view
Hello, Danielbernstein. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Also, Wikipedia content needs to be written from a neutral point of view. Some of your writing is expressed in terms which gives the appearance of aiming to present its subject matter in a favourable light, which is not acceptable: writing for the purpose of promotion is contrary to Wikipedia policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Further to the above, I now see that you have used sources which are not independent of the subject you are writing about. A source about a person which is not independent of that person should be used only under limited circumstances, and never when the purpose is to attract people to that source, rather than to provide verification for content of the Wikipedia article in question. Non-independent sources include such things as as the person's own web site, a website of a company which he or she or his company have paid to publish information, anything published by any organisation they have a personal connection to, and so on. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Stunt Car Racer
Hi, I am reverting your edits to the article Stunt Car Racer because of the following two reasons taken from the WikiProject Video games:
 * Fan remake. "It is usually inappropriate to mention or list homebrews and fan remakes of games", unless they have achieved notablity criteria such as far-reaching impact. This doesn't seem the case for the remake you added. (Manual_of_Style/Video_games)
 * Contemporary review. "As a general rule, reviewers of video games are inextricably tied to their temporal vantage point and because advancements in video game technology increase by leaps and bounds every few years, it is unfair to review a game in light of the game scene 20 years later. Likewise, hindsight can lead to revisionist reviews and nostalgia may lead to unduly positive scores. An effort should be made to include contemporary coverage of games if available in order to maintain a neutral point of view untainted by modern perceptions." A contemporary coverage of the game was already included in the article.

Please refrain from reverting again before having sought a consensus about your edits. -- Tanonero    (msg)  14:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tanonero,

The reasons mentioned above used to censor my previous edit of Stunt Car Racer do not apply.

1) The ATARI 8-Bit version is not a fan remake. It is a proper conversion based on the original C64 Stunt Car Racer code. It also improves on the C64 version by providing a faster frame rate, music, improved SFX sounds, high score cafe (so that players can upload their score) and full PAL/NTSC compatibility. As of this time of writing, the ATARI 8-Bit version of Stunt Car Racer is ranking #1 on Atarimania with a 9.1 score out of a possible 10: http://www.atarimania.com/game-atari-400-800-xl-xe-stunt-car-racer_s22936.html

You're welcome to read the full Stunt Car Racer discussion on AtariAge: http://atariage.com/forums/topic/276082-stunt-car-racer/

Please see post #336 of the discussion: http://atariage.com/forums/topic/276082-stunt-car-racer/?p=4014537

"It's not "fan remake", it's a proper conversion. Fan remakes tend to have inferior functionality to the original product where this one is clearly an improvement.  Plus it's largely using the original code so deserves to be called a port - the only difference is that it wasn't done by the original publisher."

2) The ChinnyVision review of STUNT CAR RACER is fair and balanced. None of the versions reviewed (ST, C64, Spectrum) get a bad opinion. I suggest creating a 'Contemporary Review' section for Stunt Car Racer so that the ChinnyVision quotes reside there.

"A contemporary coverage of the game was already included in the article."

This is not true. There was no contemporary review of the game (contemporary = current era) until I added the quotes from the ChinnyVision review.

Best Regards.


 * Hi.
 * 1) potayto, potahto. Even if the remake was profoundly improved, it was still done by fans. So, you are free to call it a "fan conversion", but this doesn't make it more notable in Wikipedia terms. As far as that guideline points out, the notability of the remake/conversion is anchored to its far-reaching impact, which hasn't been proven.
 * 2) The reviews that I (and the posted guideline) referred to are the ones "contemporary to the game release". In other words, review that came out close to (or even before) the game release to the public. The article includes review from Amstrad Action, Crash, Sinclair User, and Your Sinclair, which comprehensibly looked at the game from their temporal vantage point. I don't see how a review coming 30 years later would add anything to the scenario without nostalgia skewing the judgement. -- Tanonero    (msg)  14:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)