Jump to content

Talk:M.U.L.E.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FayssalF (talk | contribs) at 21:46, 31 August 2007 (→3RR Warning to BlackBeard2K7: mistake - confusing editors ---> it was meant to hungrywolf). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Template:NESproj Template:SGames

Image

Can someone good with image markup work on the formatting of the image? The previous markup didn't have the caption working, so I redid it to another format. However, now the poor M.U.L.E. looks all boxed in. Is there a way to give the poor animal a little whitespace around him? — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:13, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Bugs

The Atari Home Computer version has an end-game typo on the highest score level (final colony score of 120,000+). "OVERALL, THE COLONY DELIGHTED THE FEDERATION WITH YOUR EXCEPTIONAL ACHIEVEMENT. YOUR RETIREMENT WILL BE LUXURIOU!" This is a step above "ELEGANT ESTATES". --Jmccorm 04:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Atari Home Computer version (unknown if present in other versions). During a land auction, if the front-runner exactly runs out of money, as long as he continues to hold the joystick up, any other competitors will be unable to move upwards to outbid them, and the front-winner will win the auction. --Jmccorm 15:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this game is out of print and was made for obsolete systems, I doubt adding a bugs section will be of much, if any, benefit. IMHO, it would just add clutter to the article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except for emulation fans I guess?Garrie 10:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't ever recall seeing that typo in the C-64 version. It's probably specific to the Atari version as different ports typically have different typos entirely. Jon 18:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music

Does anyone have a link to the music in this game, and remixes if available? Shawnc 21:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this request have to do with the authoring of this article? —Psychonaut 21:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just curious, but if we're going to get technical with the policies, I can call into question the statement that the theme music is "addictive" or "widely covered" until a citation from a reputable, neutral source has been provided. I've heard the song now though. It does sound interesting. I'd make my own remix of it and make it available here, but I suppose derivative work would be a copyright violation. Shawnc 21:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut "addictive" for having the wrong tone for a wiki article. I do agree it is an excelent theme song though. Jon 18:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Over Which Versions of M.U.L.E. support 4 players

There is a dispute over which versions of MULE support 4 players [1] [2] [3]. I don't think that this really has any relevance to the description of M.U.L.E. itself, and so I feel it should be removed from the infobox. I am pretty sure all versions of MULE support 4 players. After all, the game is well known amongst old school 8-bit users as being [one of] the first 4 player multi-player computer game ever written. Maybe they don't all support 4 joysticks, but I'm pretty sure they all support 4 players. Blackbeard2k7 13:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I remember that the C-64 also supported 4 players: 2 with joystick and 2 with keyboard. I think the infobox should just say "up to 4 players" or perhaps "up to 4 players on some platforms" if there's a platform that didn't support 4. Jwolfe 16:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least for my benefit, can someone explain how it's possible for this game to support 4 players on the NES? It's a system which has only two controller ports and no keyboard. As far as the text in the article, I agree that something more vague can be used. - Slordak 14:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some consoles supported more players with splitters and the like. I don't know if splitters were available for the NES or not. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody objects, I am going to remove it from the infobox. Blackbeard2k7 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I found this Nintendo MULE link which does prove that the NES version supported 4 players. Blackbeard2k7 23:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an external link to a unique article about the ability to play MULE online. To my knowledge, it does not violate WP:EL. Blackbeard2k7 23:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have tried to indirectly advocate your Personal Web site by placing this link again. This link to the article points to BLACKBEARD2K7's personal Website & Forum. Wikipedia is NOT a place to link your personal Website/Forum. You have been warned by ELIMINATORJR before. Please avoid such unnecessary clutter on Wikipedia. Thank you. Hungrywolf 09:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link I added did not previously exist here, nor does it point to anyones personal web site or forum, nor is it a revert of EliminatorJr's edit. It points to an article, in a gaming magazine, about the ability to play MULE online. Do your research before you start making false accusations. Blackbeard2k7 15:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

A third opinion was requested on this issue, so here it is! The article linked appears to be a gaming blog. If we were to consider the link as a source to cite, instead of just an external link, it would not be a reliable source, specifically violating the self-published sources guideline. Considered strictly as an external link, the site still violates the external link policy, specifically because blogs are listed in the section of links normally to avoid, unless the author is a "recognized authority." I consider myself to be a "gamer" and am familiar with many blog authors, etc., in the genre, but I have no idea who the author of www.gamingsteve.com is, and it's not apparent from that page (the main page of www.gamingsteve.com is a "you've been hacked notice" at the time I retrieved it). It's thus impossible to consider him a "recognized authority" if you can't recognize him.

If you have reliable third-party sources that establish the author's reputation in the gaming field, please supply them; otherwise, the link doesn't belong in the article. --Darkwind (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main page of his web site was only recently hacked. I can tell you that before I linked to his article, there was no problem with his main page. I suspect foul play here. You are correct, Steven Glicker is a blogger. However, he is definitely a recognized one. He was personally invited to a "Bloggers Breakfast" at the 2006 Game Developers Conference in San Jose, hosted by Xbox. In this article from Xbox.com, he is referred to as "one of the most influential bloggers" [4]. His web site is most notable for his podcasts. The article which I linked to is directly related to M.U.L.E. and is not an advertisement or promotion. It is informational only. But I believe it is unique and relevant, as it describes the ability to play the original game of M.U.L.E. over the internet, which it was not originally designed to do. Those seeking information on the game should know that the capability exists. Does this change your opinion? Blackbeard2k7 22:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To some extent, it does; insofar as xbox.com can be considered a reliable source (and I'm sure some of us in the Wikipedia community would love to debate Microsoft's reliability...), they do call him "[one] of gaming's most influential bloggers" as you stated. I suppose on further examination, having the link in the EL section wouldn't be horribly unencyclopedic. There's no obvious copyvio problems (you're not linking directly to a site hosting the game which I assume is still under copyright, etc.), it's not a spam site, etc.; my primary concern was with unprofessionalism, which has been resolved. --Darkwind (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think when you wrote the above, you were aware that the Website in Question (Atari MULE Online) which is now being indirectly linked here, contains a software which is illegal & infringes copyright of the original software authors & publishers ATRAI. This Website offers for download pirated / modified version of the original MULE in Windows version. This Website has nothing but this illegal software for download. MULE for Windows was never released. Also, as this is a unreputed and free Website, this software may be malicious to the user.Hungrywolf 04:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that fact now, and it still doesn't change my opinion. It's not a direct link to infringing material, it's a secondary link at the most; your continued statments that it's also a secondary link to "malicious" software have yet to be confirmed; you also stated the website linked by the blog belongs to one of your fellow editors, which has also not been confirmed; and I really don't see where in WP:COPY or WP:EL it says that we have to examine such secondary links to ensure they comply with policy. Obviously, my third opinion was not enough to end the content dispute. I personally have no real interest in whether the link stays or goes, I was just providing a 3o. If Blackbeard2k7 (t c) wishes to continue discussing it, I suppose he may do so; if y'all still can't reach an agreement, it may need to go to RFC. --Darkwind (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+== External Spamming Link Violating Copyright ==

BLACKBEARD2K7 is linking to his personal Website. When that was deleted by the Admins, he is now indirectly linking to it via another unreliable & personal Blogsite.

(1) BLACKBEARD2K7 is offering, on that Website, for download a pirated / modified / hacked version of the game M.U.L.E. without the permission of the original authors or publishers ATARI. This is a serious violation of copyright material in blatant disregard to the original copyright owner.

(2) It is in violation of WP:EL as it is SPAM and he is trying to propagate his own web-site Forum here.

(3) Wikipedia is NOT a collection of links.

(4) Also, using common sense, there should be no links here to downloading executable software from a very unreliable source. Such software may contain trojans and keyloggers which steal your personal information (including Credit Card Nos & passwords)

I have deleted the offending (indirect) link.


Hungrywolf 05:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty long rant of false accusations. Can you even dispute over an "indirect" link? Where is your proof of my web site ownership? The linked article is completely relevant to the topic and does not offer any software downloads. It is informational only, and a more than one person has already agreed that the link is valid. Blackbeard2k7 12:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The site that you are now (indirectly) linking to, that you had directly linked to earlier, offers downloads of copyright and illegal software and putting a link here on Wikipedia to that site is illegal , offensive and immaterial to M.U.L.E. Please avoid this. Hungrywolf 12:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never linked any sites with illegal software downloads. The link I added provides no downloads whatsoever. It provides unique information about the ability to play MULE online, which is completely relevant to the game. Please provide proof (in the form of diffs) of your false accusations. Blackbeard2k7 13:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your indirect link to your Atari MULE Online is illegal as your site offers Copyrighted illegal software for download. Which may be malicious software too. Hungrywolf 13:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the site is unofficial, meaning its not directly affiliated with the game's official creators or distributors, it should not be added to Wikipedia - thats a common WP:EL principle. Additionally, if the website contains copy righted material, particularly software, I'd consider refraining from adding it. However, if the website is stating something important, I guess its claims could be mentioned somewhere in the body of the article, with a reference to the website. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 13:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The site is the personal website of Blackbeard2K7. Nothing official about it. And the site's existence is that it only offers this illegal copyrighted software for download. There is NOTHING else on this site except this illegal software. Hungrywolf 13:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Legal/Illegal software issue aside...How is it that you know this is the personal website of Blackbeard2K7? --Onorem♠Dil 13:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter either way -- Blackbeard2k7 (t c) did not link to his own site or to a site that has copyvio material. He linked to a gaming blog that discussed playing this game online. Please point out to me where in WP:EL it says that we have to follow all of the secondary links on an external site we link to, checking them for compliance with the EL policy as well? I have neither the time nor the inclination to click every link on a site proposed as an EL to see whether it secondarily links to copyvio or other EL-violating material.
That being said, if you have some sort of proof of the accusations you're making (that the secondarily linked site belongs to this user, or that it contains malicious software, etc.), by all means present such proof. In such a one-off case, it may be valuable to take that into consideration. --Darkwind (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Note that regardless of the veracity of the above, User:Blackbeard2k7 has been blocked for 3RR violation here. Hungrywolf has received a final warning, as well as being warned for admin/forum shopping - Alison ☺ 14:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+== Link to Malicious & illegal Software site ==

Is the onus on me to prove Copyright infringement or on the person who is putting that link up here? Well, anyways. If you check the Website/Forum of (Atari MULE Online) there is a download for Windows O/S. There was NEVER any MULE released for Windows O/S only for Console machines. Obviously, this is a modified software with is an illegal act without the permission of the original MULE authors or ATARI. Also, distributing copyrighted software such is illegal. As this Website which provides this download is not-reputed, this download may be malicious too.

You may note that BlackBeard2K7 has conveniently avoided this MAIN issue (of Software piracy) and keeps on rambling about other insignificant things. Therefore, links to this site (Atari MULE Online) should not be allowed (indirectly or directly).

Hungrywolf 06:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to continue creating separate "threads" on this matter with new headings -- this is one continuous discussion on the same topic, and I've added a leading plus to prevent your section headers from applying. Now that I've said that, please see my reply to you above. If you and Blackbeard wish to continue the discussion, please open an RFC or another method of dispute resolution. I'm done with this matter. --Darkwind (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Darkwind, please give your opinion post knowlege that this Website which is being linked contains illegal, violating copyright software Hungrywolf 07:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a long time fan of this game, and after very careful review of this discussion and the articles history, I've decided to add my comments here. 1) The user Blackbeard2K7 has never posted any link other than to the article being disputed by Hungrywolf. 2) The article contains no software for download 3) The secondary web site that is described in the article contains a freeware download which I used on my computer and did not harm my system (no malware or trojans) 4) The two possible files within the download offered by the secondary linked web site (ugh) that could be copyright are actually referenced inside the file as being downloaded from a very reputable site www.gamespy.com, where I did verify that they are publicly available for download (It seems odd that gamespy would knowingly host copyrighted stuff, and so I do not believe those files are copyrighted). the article does in fact describe the ability to play the original game of mule online (not a modified or hacked version), which cannot be found anywhere else, and since Blackbeard2K7 has in fact produced evidence that the article is written by a well known gaming source, I believe it should have a place in the article because it is very relevant to the topic. But I tend to agree with user Shadowjester whereas it should be added to the body of the article and then referenced, not added to an external link section. My 2 cents. Maybe add a comment to the place where it says that the author was working on an internet version before her death. Oh also I found no evidence of a user named blackbeard2k7 even existing or being mentioned on any of the links. I wanted to make sure I covered everything in one shot.Wishinguwell 18:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

I suspect strongly that Wishinguwell is a sockpuppet of BlackBeard2K7. I used this software (stupidly) sometime ago and it installed spyware and malware on my PC. I had to reformat my harddrive after that. I suspect that there was a keylogger installed. If the same software exists on gamespy.com then put a direct link pointing to that. Software downloaded from a unreputed site is dangerous and can be malicious. Also, there was NO Windows version of M.U.L.E. if this site offers this for download then it can only be a hacked / modified version of the original authors. Putting any link to this here on Wikipedia is not appropriate Hungrywolf 05:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First you said that the software could possibly be malicious. Now all of a sudden you claim you've used the software some time ago? Now you are obviously lying and I don't see the point. You are arguing about a link that doesn't exist on Wikipedia. And if you suspect me of being a sock puppeteer, then file a report about it. You have no proof of such false accusations, nor any of your other false accusations.Blackbeard2k7 05:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I am so much against this illegal software is because it ruined my PC and I had to reformat my Harddrive. Hungrywolf 05:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont believe you. Can you show me proof?Blackbeard2k7 05:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, whats this? I found this link from the link within the link. It's the supposedly copyrighted software.... on gamespy? Maybe you should inquire with them about that, and then get back to us with their response.Blackbeard2k7 05:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WOW ! That proves something doesnt it?? Why not link to it on Gamespy.com instead of making people download from your personal page? Unless you have packaged something else maliciously with it... Hungrywolf 13:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you exactly why it should not link to gamespy. It's because gamespy is referenced only as the source of the abandonware (only a portion of the software which you falsely accuse of being malicious) which you claim to be copyrighted. (This is getting stupid already). It does not offer the emulator with kaillera integrated (freeware) in a neat little package that allows you to play the game online, with full documentation, which is what the original article I linked explains about, which is what the comment itself is informing about. And so your switching the reference to gamespy makes the reference an invalid reference to the comment itself. Stop reverting perfectly legitimate edits with your now obvious disruptive behavior. If the download contained malicious software, I doubt that Stephen Glicker would have endorsed it, and I'm sure that there would at least be one or two complaints on the forum of the supposedly offending web site, which I have no affiliation with other than being a member.Blackbeard2k7 15:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning to BlackBeard2K7

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on M.U.L.E.. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. - Hungrywolf 05:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe this guy? Enough already. Show proof of all of your false accusations. I've shown proof for everything I've done. You've shown nothing but uncivility.Blackbeard2k7 05:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you own this above site & want people to download your illegal & malicious software, I think you hardly have any standing. I hope you are aware that it is a criminal offence in USA to distribute illegal & malicious software Hungrywolf 05:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is ENOUGH, Hungrywolf (t c). I wasn't going to remain involved in this, but I forgot to take this off my watchlist, and it's apparently a good thing I didn't. This edit war is ridiculous. You are now accusing people of crimes on Wikipedia, which I'm sure you know is perilously close to violating WP:LEGAL. Without proof of your accusations, you risk being blocked for disruption. You have YET to provide links to evidence that Blackbeard2k7 (t c) owns the secondarily linked site, or to provide proof that the software is malicious. So you had a bad experience using the software. Cry in your beer, fix your computer or visit Geek Squad, and MOVE ON. It's not a reason to participate in a ridiculous edit war over a single external link. And really, we can avoid your twin complaints by just linking directly to the GameSpy site which has the same software. Unless you'd like to accuse one of the most popular gaming sites on the Internet of hosting malicious and copyvio software (or perhaps accuse them of being owned by Blackbeard2k7 (t c), none of which which is hardly likely. I'm restoring the original link, and YOU are also in danger of violating 3RR on this matter. --Darkwind (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the onus on me to prove that the software is illegal?????? The person putting the link here should prove that the software linked here is not illegal. If you care to read my previous edits, it was I who suggested that this be directly linked to www.Gamespy.com, (IF IT IS THERE). Can you offer copyrighted software for download on your personal website???? Where is this legal?????Hungrywolf 12:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the onus is on you to prove the software is illegal. The burden of proof is always on the person who's assuming copyvio see (WP:COPY). Otherwise, the link adds valuable content to the article, which is what this whole thing is supposedly about. Also, I'm a bit confused as to how you can say "if it is there" in your comment above, when the link above goes directly to classicgaming.gamespy.com. If you want to change it to the gamespy link instead of to gamingsteve.com, go for it. I still believe that a link to this matter is a valuable addition to the article. At any rate, I'm taking this off my watchlist. This is well beyond what I was trying to do by providing a 3o in the first place, and I wash my hands of the matter.
As a side note, I strongly encourage you to let this matter go as well. Stop coming to this article and talk page, and ignore Blackbeard2k7 (t c). Your writing style above indicates a strong emotional attachment to the outcome of the discussion (I mean, really, 6 question marks after one sentence, 5 after another, and 4 after a third? Come on, now...), and you're going to give yourself an ulcer if you keep on the way you are. --Darkwind (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done with your bullshit and lies. Go revert my edits again and see if I care. I am sure some administrator will come along and put you in your place once and for all.Blackbeard2k7 05:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A first glance, i thought being prudent was more important than posting a link to an allegedly malicious software. I now see that third party opinions (especially Darwink who's been among us since a couple of years now and someone who knows a bit about these kind of software) are being suspicious of Hungrywolf intentions instead. Indeed, while checking again both Field Commander and M.U.L.E articles history i come now to the conclusion that Hungrywolf has followed Blackbeard from the former to the latter article. Hungrywolf first revert here was that the external link is a fan site and now he says it is malicious. Ok, fair enough, Blackbeard Hungrywolf is urgently asked to go edit somewhere else and stop it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M.U.L.E.&oldid=154892678"