Talk:Bruce Woodcock (computer games analyst)

message: There hasn’t been any news on Bruce for a while. His website hasn’t been updated for half a year, he hasn’t made any public appearances for quire a while and hasn't responded to e-mails. Anyone know what’s up? DocVM 23:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With mmogchart never updating, why doesn't someone else pick up the job? We really would like to see some new numbers! 85.227.226.168 15:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone has... http://www.mmogdata.com/ Seems that someone has taken SirBruce's data and added to it. Should that be mentioned in the article now? DocVM 12:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! I don't think this link has any place on Bruce's page. If there were a page on mmogchart then it would be highly useful to redirect people to this new page, however. 195.24.29.51 14:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: This article seems a little.. politically correct might be the term. I remember SirBruce from the LumTheMad forums and jokingly recall his title of 'The Man Most Banned From Forum Boards', not to mention the WW2O controversy things. While I don't remember the exact details of everything that happened, perhaps someone else could come up with counterpoints to the situations I've mentioned? It doesn't seem right for all the good to be posted without all the bad. I'll see what I can remember and find out. PratzStrike 08:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional viewpoints would be great.  One of the main sticking points so far, is that "controversial" information, especially about someone who's living (as opposed to a historical figure) on Wikipedia has to be referenced, meaning it has to be linked to an outside source somewhere that isn't a message board or blog.  So Lum's forums, in general, can't really be used as a source.  :/ Check the Wikipedia policies at WP:LIVING for more details.  If you can find other sources though that verify the participation or controversy, then I fully agree, that would be an excellent addition to this article. --Elonka 10:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd just like to add that I have no problem with controversies being added, but as Elonka said, she would prefer them to be sourced.  I think it would be fair include a general blurb that I also became notable for butting heads with various people on the LtM/SND/P2P and other such forums, but I don't know if there's really a need to go into specifics since individual controversies probably never rose to a sufficiently notable level.  SirBruce 03:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Given the no blog/no message board rule for sourcing, Bruce is probably in the clear, since message boards (and Usenet prior) were the 'scenes of the crime' as it were. Since I have personal experience from the time and can act as a hopefully NPOV source I'll add a brief sentence. Feel free to edit as appropriate. SJennings 15:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll also note that the no blog/no message board rule has been heavily relaxed due to circumstances like this one where we're describing something that happened on blogs and message boards. Phil Sandifer 15:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-NPOV? 

message: According to Category:St. Louisans people associated with the town of Sullivan should be included in the category, but the two other notable Sullivan people, Bottomly and Harney, are not listed in the category.  However, Sullivan does fall within the geographic boundary defined for the category.  Given this, I have no problem being added to the St. Louisans category, and I think if there needs to be a change, it should be a redefinition of the St. Louisans category to represent only a much smaller area. SirBruce 20:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: City limits aside, how do you regard yourself?  Someone from Missouri?  Or someone from St. Louis? :) --Elonka 23:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does it matter?  I regard myself as a lot of things that don't meet the defined Wikipedia criteria for those categories.  SirBruce 23:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say it matters, because it would help in the discussion about who :Category:St. Louisans should apply to.  As you're from one of the areas on the borderline, your opinion can help to clarify Wikipedia guidelines on this matter. Though it might be a violation of WP:AUTO for you to edit your own bio, you are as welcome as anyone else on the internet to participate in Wikipedia policy discussions.  So perhaps I should rephrase the question: "To a typical resident of Sullivan, Missouri, do you they regard themselves more as "from Missouri", or "from St. Louis"? :) --Elonka 23:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh yes, I agree my opinion would matter for THAT discussion, but it hardly matters for THIS discussion. SirBruce 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: St. Louisans 

message: It is distressing to me to find that Bruce Woodcock's famous name has been co-opted by a young modern computer games programmer with a website. Google his honorable name and see what you get!  This is just one reference to him . The late Bruce Woodcock was England's most famous heavyweight boxer, and fought for the world heavyweight title endorsed by the British Boxing Board of Control when he lost to America's Lee Savold in June 1950. His boxing record is a piece of boxing history, and I think that this Mr.  Woodcock should graciously concede and re-title his page in some way, and let the famous Bruce Woodcock be the simple name belonging to the boxer. And if a technical reason needs to be given, Bruce Woodcock's name appears in several other boxer's pages, but is not linked, because you, sir, keep popping up!  I've no doubt that someone will write him up, but I don't have the time. - JohnClarknew 07:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the boxer is notable.  He's already referred to on such pages as Abergele, Freddie Mills, and Lee Savold, among others.  I'd recommend making a stub page at Bruce Woodcock (boxer), and then we can work out later whether Bruce Woodcock should point to one or the other, or just be a disambiguation page that points to both equally.  :) But until there's an actual page on the boxer, it's moot. --Elonka 07:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to see that this has already been worked out to everyone's satisfaction so quickly. Bruce Woodcock was my boyhood hero, famous for his "glass jaw". Now he has the start of his own page. Thank you for the intervention. JohnClarknew 15:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bruce Woodcock was a British Champion Boxer! 

message: I'm not sure exactly what happened, but some crazy automatic program deleted my picture claiming it was dispurated non-free content.  It wasn't, and in any case was uploaded before the appropriate date and no notice was given.  Elonka, could you restore the image?
(SirBruce (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I am the original source of the photo, I've reuploaded it and released it into the public domain. SJennings (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Scott, that'll work, though we'll probably want to get the image moved over to the Commons at some point (that way its in a central location from which it can also be used in other language 'pedias).  I can handle that, if you want.  Also, since you're online, I'd appreciate if you could doublecheck the latest rewrite at Lum the Mad?  If you see anything that needs changing, let us know. :) --Elonka 11:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Removed 

message: DaveBurstein (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not good form to remove sourced information as "out of date".  Business Week is a reliable source.  As for checking current stock price, that's what is called original research and is against Wikipedia policies. I am restoring the information.  If you would like to change it, preferably by adding further sources, please do, but please do not removed sourced information. --Elonka 22:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bruce Woodcock (computer games analyst). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050905210528/http://www.businessweek.com:80/bwdaily/dnflash/july2000/nf00713b.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/july2000/nf00713b.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104212921/http://www.igda.org/online/IGDA_PSW_Whitepaper_2004.pdf to http://www.igda.org/online/IGDA_PSW_Whitepaper_2004.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619004539/http://etext.org:80/Zines/Quanta/illusions.html to http://www.etext.org/Zines/Quanta/illusions.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060718101933/http://www.gameconference.com:80/speakers/brucewoodcock.html to http://www.gameconference.com/speakers/brucewoodcock.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050905210528/http://www.businessweek.com:80/bwdaily/dnflash/july2000/nf00713b.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/july2000/nf00713b.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060524081031/http://gamedeveloper.texterity.com:80/gamedeveloper/sample/?pm=2&z=fw&pvieww=1268&zin=112&u1=texterity&b=2&pg=20 to http://gamedeveloper.texterity.com/gamedeveloper/sample/?pm=2&z=fw&pvieww=1268&zin=112&u1=texterity&b=2&pg=20
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified