Talk:Derek Smart

==

• Archive 1: May 2005-June 2006

• Archive 2: June 2006-August 2006

• Archive 3: More August 2006

Do not edit-war

I remind you that edit-warring will get you blocked and the page likely protected again. --Ideogram 17:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I urge you to please remove the Werewolves link and full protect this page until further notice. As you can see, the anons are at it again, making any/all discussions a waste of time.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 17:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and whichever admin protects the page will not pass judgement by removing the link first. Both of you ought to stop reverting, it doesn't matter which version temporarily is visible. I presume both of you are aware of the Three-revert rule; that will at least slow you down. Reverting is a waste of time, when you realize that, we can continue the discussion.--Ideogram 18:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I remind you both that "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement"; if either of you makes three reverts tomorrow I can and will get you blocked for violating the rule. Now, who wants to discuss? --Ideogram 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Son of a b-... This page is doomed to revert-war, isn't it? Cmdr, the entire other issues section is out, and you're still going all 3RR over one external link and the weasel words tag? Are you completely incapable of letting anything go, even for a moment? You're also misrepresenting several things:

• Your statement that the link has been shown to be unreliable "by an admin" is a false appeal to authority. Read Wikipedia:Administrators, admins perform maintenance and other administrative tasks (hence why Stifle did not have any discretion over which version of the page to lock) and do not sit in judgement on content disputes. On content matters, they are no more authoritative that other (very experienced) editors.
• You can't request a lock every time you refuse to compromise, nor can locks be placed on any page indefinitely. There is also no provision to lock pages "until arbitration," the page is going to be open to editting most of the time, get used to it.
• I'm sure you have other interests besides BC3K and its sequels, why not go do some edits, however minor, to some other, non-controversial topics? You'd have much better luck getting things done on pages like this if you learn more about WP as a whole (ok, my own experience goes a ways to disprove this, but it still sounds like good advice).

As for the Anon(s), I realize you think we're on the same "side," but this really isn't helpful. It's time to have a real, substantive conversation about the contents of this page, and that's not going to happen if we're too busy with reeverts. That said, I am partial to the idea of leaving the link in while we talk, simply because Cmdr has failed to compromise on a single sentence thus far, and him getting absolutely everything he wants doesn't seem to be raising his level of discourse any.

Fox1 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanyou for the suggestion. I stopped making any changes after Supreme_Cmdr's 4th revert today.

Why am I not surprised about these comments? This is your usual rhetoric. You did the same thing with BBlackmoor when he didn't agree with you, Hintori and others.

Fact is, that link started it all. It is now 100% decided that since it not sourced material, it cannot stand.

The "Other Issues" section you are now working on, I created in order to give a neutral opinion on the whole Bill Huffman/Werewolves page if we were to allow the link to remain. Until then, it was a one sided argument.

You have now removed it. There is no point in putting that section (regardless of how many edits you do btw) back in because the offending - and violating link - is now gone and according to an admin, should remain gone since it does not meet with the Wiki guidelines as a reliable source.

This is the argument BBlackmoor, myself and others have been having with you and yours for so many months. It had to take my having the page locked, requesting arbitration etc, to draw attention to the page and what you folks were doing to it. Now you're just upset because the Wiki rules have been thrust in your face and you have no recourse but to abide by them. Had you and your friends actually followed the rules, this would never have continued and gone this far. To the extent that in chasing you folks around, I got myself caught in 3RR when I wasn't paying attention.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 19:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

For the love of christ, what are you even talking about? What?! What did I "do to BBlackmoor?" He was a good editor and I had worked with him on other pages before, amiably, and had a decent working relationship. Are you even literate? I just posted four paragraphs with the sole purpose of giving you some (apparently much-needed) pointers on WP, and, despite the fact that nowhere in my comment did I attempt to argue with you about content, you're still going off on your paranoid screed without responding to a goddamned thing I actually said.

I have held out olive branch after olive branch, I have proposed compromises and tried to discuss things with you, and I get the same "I requested mediation, I reverted, I know WP policy better than anyone here, you killed BBlackmoor's dog, you're in an elaborate conspiracy with Bill Huffman, you're one of those detractors from USENET, blah blah blah." I'm seriously beginning to wonder if you're a bot, or if you just can't be bothered to read anything anyone else says.

And no, none of this happened because of you or your petty little lock, it happened because Stifle and Ideogram have been willing to come in here, talk about the article and reference policies that actually apply. That's the horrifyingly sad part of all this, you could have gotten what you wanted the whole time, but your complete inability to assume good faith, your refusal to respond calmly and civilly to anyone elses concerns and your insistence on taking every policy you could lay your hands on and twisting it to your obsessive purpose stalled your own efforts as much, if not more, than anyone else's.

So no, this is NOT what you've been saying for months, you've been dragging out libel, NOR, verifiabilty and every other policy under the sun, but you never found the right tool for the job and how you go about your edits here matters just as damned much as your intent. You're still a POV warrior, and the fact that you've managed to imagine me as your "sworn enemy" when I spent most of my time here, pre-Cmdr, removing exactly the sort of anti-Smart vandalism and material you claim to oppose says everything about what a combative, abrasive and counter-productive presence you have been. Oh, who am I kidding, you're not even going to read this far.

Fox1 (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems as if each time a new neutral person appears on this Wiki, some folks decide to resort to war editing and claiming consensus when there is non. LordKazan just made two reverts (at 3RR I will report it) which he claims were due to a consensus being reached. That was of course a lie because the edits I made were WP:NPOV and no prior consensus existed. WarHawk 21:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

it's because you're censoring FACTUAL information AGAINST consensus (it has to be four reverts before it's a 3RR violation, and I'm well aware of the polciy). Stop your censorship, blanking is vandalism! Lordkazan 21:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

This is a non-binding straw poll to help determine consensus on the issue of an external link.

Should the external link to werewolves.org be included in the external links section of this article? Sign with #~~~~ under the section of your choice. Place all comments in the comments section.

Yes

1. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Fox1 (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Ehheh 13:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Mikademus 14:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC) (or a link to an article discussing the site, see comment below)
5. Tomlouie 16:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Chris 18:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC) (A little late on this ... sorry)
7. Doggie Yum Yums 23:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
8. --Aim Here 21:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
9. dfgarcia 04:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Kerr avon 16:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Kurt 19:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No

1. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
2. --JJay 23:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Addhoc 17:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
4. JBKramer 11:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
5. WarHawk 19:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Piercetp 14:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Other

1. Neutral. I don't see what it adds, unless we really want this article to talk about all the flame wars. On the other hand I don't believe it is against policy, as long as it is descriptively labeled. --Ideogram 22:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• WP:RS and WP:V apply to encyclopedia material. WP:EL applies for external links. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• If this is a non-binding straw poll, whats the point?Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Linking to an external link that violates WP:RS and/or WP:EL is no different from cutting and pasting the source contents. Common sense should prevail I think. But no, that may be too easy. So a heated and pointless debate - which has gone on for months prevails.

Quoted from WP:EL:

1. Is it proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)?
2. Is the link, in the context used, likely to have a substantive longevity? For example, it is not useful to link to a homepage that changes often and merely happens to have a relevant picture or article on its front page at the moment. Similarly, be very wary of citing an unstable page as a source.
3. Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us (see Wikipedia:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations).
4. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)
5. non-neutral links
6. Quoted from WikiEN-l.

   I am not talking about trolls and problem users in this case, though. I am talking about bad editors, editors who don't stop to think that reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do.

   I have sent Smart another email about this before the argument starts that since I'm not Smart, my opinions about libelous information on the werewolves.org page does not count. In fact, quite clearly, Huffman saying that Smart has NPD is clearly a case for libel. Nothing to do with his Ph.D. or lackof. The entire site can be considered one massive pool of libelous material. Anyone with half a brain can go through that site and draw this conclusion.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• The point of a non-binding straw poll is to get an idea of whether concensus exists, and what it is... if that doesn't seem worthwhile, than you're still having difficulty grasping the core concepts of WP. Also, one of your own links says "There's nothing wrong with a POVed link, as long as the link description makes a clear statement which POV is represented." Secondly, the quoted portion of WP:EL (which is a style guide, not a policy) is debateable (indeed, there is debate on the pages own talk page), is contradicted by working guidelines in other areas and pages and, quite simply, I disagree with it in this context.

Fox1 (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• The Attribute assertions section of the Guidelines for controversial articles states that links to biased sources is ok as long as the possible b ias is clearly and neutrally identified in the link itself. It further says that if the "status of the link itself is disputed" then a link to an aticle or site discussing or referencing the article is to be prefered. Hope this helps. Mikademus 14:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  Fine. Nevertheless, the bias link itself is not clearly and neutrally identified. Since the status of the link is in dispute, then a link to the site discussing it is a compromise that I would accept. In fact, this was the spirit in which I original created the Bill Huffman section and which Fox1 now has as a temporary page. So, Fox1, perhaps then you should convert your WIP page to this external article and discuss the site there. This way, any all aggravation over the link and the site, will be focused on that external article, instead of in Smart's autobiography. I am willing to accept that as a compromise and all the link to remain.

  Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  In response to Cupreme Cmdr's post above I have created the stub page "Derek Smart flamewar" loosly based on the Wikipedia Military History Project's styleguide. Without being very versed in this conflict I have tried to keep it as neutral and factual as possible. I have not inserted any links in it. I would request the particiants here to examine it, and if you endorse it move all pertinent information and links there, and link to that page from this article. Mikademus 15:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think content forking is the answer. And I'm not sure why a link or source that is acceptable there would not also be acceptable here. Ehheh 15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If the logic eludes you, perhaps you should try reading the above section quoted by Mikademus again. All you have been doing on this page is reverting. Unlike Fox1, myself and others, you haven't done any anything of substance nor worthy of discussion. You and your ilk, are the problem with this page.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 15:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you read WP:NPA, if we're giving each other reading lists. Ehheh 15:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, I'm only taking an objective, distanced stance here, but anwering the fork question above, it would be acceptable by a strict interpretation of Wikipedia principles (especially Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, but there are some good reading in Wikipedia:Autobiography too) since the requirements for information are harsher for biographical pages, while what links can be considered relevant information changes when documenting ongoing events, such as internet phenomena, like in this instance the Great Flamewar (or whatever it is called, I called it the Derek Smart flamewar, but that might be an unorthodox denomination). In any way, it would allow full documentation in a specialised page and only strictly factual information in the biographic page, but information still accessable through a link. Also, the links themselves can be discussed as metainformation in a specialised page unlike here, where they would be off-topic. I hope this is one way to reach an agreement. Mikademus 15:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect someone will AFD it and we'll end up having to merge back and be at square one... and now that I go look at the article again, it looks like someone has else has just started that process. Ehheh 15:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have requested a postponement on that. I personally think it is an internet phenomenon worthy of documenting due to its scope and the number of particiapans involved. It is also a solution to the tempestousness of this article. If you agree I would request comments or votes to that effect be places on the AFD comment page. Mikademus 16:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've thought of this before, the problem is, we've never found an acceptable source to use to create that article. We can't use usenet, we can't use dsmart's blog or forums, we can't use werewolves. We could LINK all of those items... but we'd end up with a blank article with a bunch of external links.

Can we find enough valid sources to have anything on that page? What about that Gamespy article I posted above? The title is a bit inflammatory (more so than the article content, imo) and the references to the flamewar are rather oblique and general, but it's really all I've found.

Fox1 (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

All such links would be eligable for inclusion on that page since they can be embedded and discussed ("qualified") in an altoghether different way than in here. Also, it is a change to document a significant piece of Internet history. In short, if it can solve several months of irreconcilable dispute it is worth a shot. Mikademus 17:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Great Flamewar Page" may calm the Derek Smart page down somewhat for a while, but it will not solve the root of 95% of the reversions (that 95% deal with the inclusion/exclusion of to the External Link A collection of materials on various controversies surrounding Derek Smart, with commentary extremely critical of Smart.) 144.189.5.201 18:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically its one man's war against another. Pure and simple. The site is patently libelous and serves no purpose other than to attack Smart. It is no different than any other site on the Internet (e.g. those attack gay rights, George Bush, Jews etc) that is designed to attack and opposing side. Thats not a controversy. Like the Great Flame War, I suspect that unless an agreement is reached, this Wiki page will continue to be disputed for many - many - years to come. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. However, referring back to the matter at hand, while some content may not be included in Wikipedia, linking to that content, as long as the link itself does not violate WP:EL and is described in a neutral point of view, it is valid for inclusion. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's examine that, Cmdr: It is no different than any other site on the Internet (e.g. those attack gay rights, George Bush, Jews etc) that is designed to attack and opposing side.

Even if you're right, check out Westboro Baptist Church, do you think godhatesfags.com meets verifiabilty and NPOV requirements in WP? No, it most assuredly does not (heck, I don't even like typing the URL), but it's an external link, so we use different criteria. Just consider that, please.

Fox1 (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the point. Note that until recently, I wasn't even aware of WP:EL. Once I'd read more on it, thats when I agreed to have the link stand, but it be descriptive in its content and linked to its own explanatory page. At least we're getting somewhere. All we need now is a general consensus. At least until the next all out brawl ensues over some other seemingly ludicrous link or text. Yes, it is a vicious cycle.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 08:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Out of interest, is there any agreement that you intend reaching other than one which is a page lock on your version? Stifle (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made lots of compromises. At first I didn't even want the Werewolves link in the article. Then after considering WP:EL I agreed to let it stand. Then a dispute erupted over how it should be described. At this point, now that an RFC has been filed against me, I'm not compromising on anything. The link should not stand as it not only fails the WP:EL test but also it is nothing more than libel and thuse has no place in this Wiki entry. We're not talking about an obscure page (e.g. God hates Gays) that targets a lot a caste of people. This is a legally actionable site that seeks to libel and defame one living person.

As if that wasn't bad enough, now people are removing entries which were already made with consensus a long time ago. e.g. the links to his AI articles. These people don't want to see anything positive about Smart on this Wiki page. As I've said before, I will never let this behavior stand. So unless the page remains protected forever I don't see any compromise being reached.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 16:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't own this page, so regrettably it is not your decision whether or not to let the behaviour stand. If the site is legally actionable, then Mr. Smart will no doubt take legal action against it and have it shut down. The allegations are an inherent part of Mr. Smart's life and to not document them would be to leave out relevant information from the page. Stifle (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I voted no because this is an obvious attmpt to fan a flame war. This sort of thing does not belong on Wikipedia. A message board or chat room perhaps but not here. Piercetp 14:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wording of the werewolves link

Content through Auguest can be found here.

I have once again removed the Werewolves link which not only myself but others have agreed fails to pass both the [[WP:EL] and WP:RS tests are they pertain to the more stringent guidelines governing WP:BLP. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested Unprotection

I requested unprotection on the article. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh cool, let the edit warring resume. We haven't reached anything near a consensus, so removing the protection will only cause hostilities to resume. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Could we agree that if the page is unprotected the werewolves link should not be included until a consensus is reached? Addhoc 20:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The werewolves link is already included. I agree that it should not be removed until a consensus is reached. 144.189.5.201 21:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Noted, in my view, we should gain consensus prior to unprotecting the page. Also, in my view the link is unencyclopedic. Addhoc 21:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless whether the werewolves link is unencyclopaedic or not (what is defined as encyclopaedic by the way), however there is nothing in the wiki guidlines prohibiting it to be included as a external link. This whole rotten edit war is due to supreme_cmdr's stubbornnes to accept the views of a majority and permit the werewolves site to be a external link. More controversial and infinitely more notable people than Smart such as Pat Robertson Pat Robertson has many external links critical of him. We should base the Smart article on robertsons articles structure, ie with sections like controversies and criticisms. It is interesting to note that supreme_cmdr doesnt seem to mind the article been locked although it still contains the werewolves link. So long as other people are unable to edit it, it seems that the supreme_cmdr doesnt care.

220.247.250.244 14:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because there is a conflict doesn't mean you should add and remove text at will. Just don't make changes that are controversial to the article. If someone reverts an edit, don't revert back, bring it up on the Talk page. If you revert an edit, explain why in the edit summary and/or bring it up on the Talk page. Just don't edit war. It is up to you. Also note that while WP:3RR has a technical limit on reverts, any edit warring is disruption that can warrant blocking. If a change is controversial, discuss it on the Talk page. That is all. —Centrx→talk • 01:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Long before the anons and their ilk turned this bio into a drive-by-edit war, the link was already controversial and was removed several times. In fact, it never was there in this article to begin with. They added it later. It has already been proven that its inclusion fails WP:BLP guidelines, among others. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 20:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the advice of Centrx, which is very sensible. Regarding the question posed by 220.247.250.244, there is guidance about external links in WP:EL. Also reading WP:BLP would probably be useful. Thanks, Addhoc 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been asserted several times that the werewolves link 'fails WP:BLP.' Could someone please point out where the BLP policy addresses the subject of external links beyond the subject's own sites? I seem to be having trouble finding it. Ehheh 14:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion is here. Addhoc

Those quotations are about information contained within the article itself, not links. I'm looking for some kind of explicit mention of an external link. Ehheh 15:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the situation is that WP:EL advises that links should be reputable and WP:BLP indicates that in borderline cases, we should not include potentially hurtful information. Addhoc 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read WP:BLP, can you point out where in the BLP it mentions external links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.189.5.201 (talk • contribs)

Thankyou for signing my question User:Addhoc! Please answer it also. 144.189.5.201 23:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

While WP:BLP does not address WP:EL specifically, it does say the following:

"Articles about living persons must adhere strictly to NPOV and verifiability policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim."

I realize that EL is not addressed directly, but the policy does point in the direction of excluding the link. Look specifically to the Reliable Sources section of the same article. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all as we can see the moment that the article was unprotected supreme_cmdr has gone and removed the werewolves link. What I cant understand is that if we go on reading biographies of controversial figures in wikipiedia we find that most of them have external links to sites which are critical of them (vide Pat Robertson et al). The above WP:BLP contains serveral vague points, for example what is a "high quality" reference.

The werewolves link can hardly be claimed to be a unsourced or poorly sourced link as the material it contains which are USENET posting can indeed be verified with archives of usenet like google groups. Supreme_cmdr alleges that several postings on the werewolves site are altered ones, however he has repeatedly failed to show any such modified posting which could be cross checked with a USENET archive. So without evidence to the contrary the werewolves site should be assumed to contain genuine usenet postings which hardly makes it a poorly sourced material.

I would be gratefull if you could pointout as under what clause of the WP:BLP the werewolves site was taken to assume that the EL was not valid. If the guidlines are taken as gospel then any external site critical of anyone can not be including in a wiki biography.

Added signature... Kerr avon 14:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The Pat Robertson links are nothing like this one. Even so, several of those links are not especially warranted for an encyclopedia article. —Centrx→talk • 16:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Take the Sai Baba wikipedia article [1], which is about the controversial yet popular guru Sai Baba. There are numerous links and mentions of articles and people critical of him ranging from serious allegations like child molestation etc, which make Smart's criticisms which supreme_cmdr is whining about look like childs play.

So how is that so many criticisms and serious alegations (child molestation is serious indeed) are permitted for Sai Baba with links too, but not for a minor link to a archive of internet postings that Smart has done. One suggestion is that we can have a controversies section for Smart with various mentions abouthe flame war, his Fake Ph.d claims, werewolves site etc, and have a "THe neutrality of this section is disputed" banner over it. That should satisfy the so called detractors of Smart and satisfy the supreme_cmdr as well. Kerr avon 14:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Those external links appear to have been taken out of that article, but when there they were links to various newspapers and magazines, fairly reliable sources, whereas this one here is just a random webpage. I would object to the link here not because it is critical, but because Wikipedia is not a link directory and the page linked is rather informal. Instead, criticism from reliable sources should be integrated directly into the article, not as an appendix with a link to a page with a animated graphic of his head blowing up. —Centrx→talk • 14:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The werewolves page is clearly not just a random website. It shows up prominently on any google search and is the most comprehensive archive of the usenet flamewars (albeit an archive with a clear slant against Smart). The problem here is that because the flamewars were on usenet there is by definiton no such thing as a reliable source, nor are we likely to find much criticism from reliable sources because reliable media sources don't cover flamewars. The closest thing we have is some commentary on the Smart controversies from some reliable game mags. --Beaker342 15:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Commentary from gaming websites and magazines would qualify for this sort of thing, and carefully worded descriptions explaining what happened with specific reference to the Usenet postings combined with them could be sufficient. —Centrx→talk • 15:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Usenet postings are specifically disallowed by the sourcing guidelines. -Ehheh 15:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hence the apparent paradox of how to describe the USENET flame wars which derek smart was involved, in his biography and remain inline with the wikipeida guidlines. There is no doubt that any self respecting biography of Smart should include mention of the infamous flame wars, just google around for Derek Smart and you will see that most descriptions/gaming magazine interviews etc of Smart mention his infamous involvement in the Flame wars. Kerr avon 17:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have encountered is that the gaming mag articles are usually very abstract in their discussion of the flamewars. They usually mention that he is infamous and that he likes to attract controversy, but don't go much into specifics (i.e. the specifics of what was said, the topics of debate, the PhD controversy, etc). The only real in-depth coverage and analysis of the flamewars is the werewolves site. --Beaker342 18:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Usenet isn't a good source for a Wiki entry on physics, say, but Wikipedia seems to treat it as a valid source for what was said on Usenet. If it's otherwise, then someone needs to go through Wikipedia and AfD great chunks of it. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that are entirely on the subject of, and mostly sourced by, Usenet postings such as Rec.music.white-power newsgroup vote, Serdar Argic, Archimedes Plutonium, and perhaps most relevant, Meow Wars, and Rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated. Meow Wars is about a huge and interminable flamewar, and the babylon 5 entry is a wikipedia article because the writer of the series happened to take part in it. Those two could even set a precedent for the Derek Smart flamewars having an article in it's own right, let alone being merely a passing referenced external link in this article. --Aim Here 18:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but on any kind of a contentious topic deviation from the guidelines just gives people more excuses to argue or revert. Using Usenet sources to document happenings on Usenet was raised as an issue over on the Sollog article, for example. I'll bring this up on the talk page for WP:RS, perhaps there will be consensus for adding an exception to the prohibition on Usenet sourcing. - Ehheh 18:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Flame War

I added a section to the main page about the Flame War using a link to an interview hosted on the BC3K (official Derek Smart web page) and using a quote by Derek Smart on his view of the flame war.144.189.5.201 19:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

looks good to me, remember to sign your posts Lordkazan 19:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Botched diffs?

Don't know why, but the history state of this article doesn't cross reference with the last few diffs, especially during some of my edits. Hence, I reverted my recent edits, and then editted my changes back in, to this state. -- Tomlouie | talk 12:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Interviews

I suggest that we recompile the collection of interviews from the 3000ad page here. A lot of the links are dead, so it would be better if we could link to caches of them on this page instead of depending on the 3000ad page. Doing so would also help eliminate any appearances of pro-Smart bias in said compliation. --Beaker342 14:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

DS does not own FreeSpace

DS expressed interest in purchasing the rights - the entire community collectively told him to go to hell (especially after he made ill-informed and unsupportable legal threats against various parts of the community) - he ended up not purchase the rights. Lordkazan 15:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right. Like the the so-called community owns or has anything to do with his acquisition (or lackof) of the license. All that is clear is that he tried to license it from Interplay back when they started selling off properties (e.g. Fallout license went to Bethesda around the same time). Apparently Interplay wanted too much money for the license, so he passed on it.

And please stop posting the same crap in various places because thatts not going to give it any additional credibility.

I also want to note that seeing that you were banned from Smart's forum and was notable also on the Dreamcatcher forums, please try to remember that this Wiki is not your personal playground nor a place for attacking Smart. But then again most of you fail to realize this simple fact and yet people wonder why this Wiki is never going to remain in any stable or complete form. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 17:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm no longer banned there. You're the one treating this wiki as your perosnal playground, and the truth isn't an attack. Stop being a rabid biased fanboi and accept that your personal savior has some flaws. Lordkazan 19:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Per WP:FU, "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like," is not allowed.

"merely shows what they look like" is a very vague term indeed. So if we want a picture of this (in)famous man in his wikipedia bio then what sort of picture should it be, should it additionally show him in his underpants or worse? That wiki guidline is very vague and absurd. If we can get supreme_cmdr to get his masters approval for a picture to be included in smart's bio then what kind of picture should it be? If smart can use that picture on his own site, i see no reason as to why we cannot use it on wikipedia if we get smart's approval. Or even without as a fair use example. Kerr avon 10:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but I think it means that you can't take that image which, presumably since it's on his site, is copyrighted. It would be another story if you took the picture, but Fair Use governs taking a copyrighted material and publishing it without permission from the copyright-holder, namely Smart. You're right further on: using it if one were to get Smart's approval. At that point, it would no longer be Fair Use, but a rightful use by permission. Go on and ask him ... see what he says. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 13:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask Supreme_cmdr who is quite closely associated (and could be smart himself) to help us in obtaining permission as I do not know a way of contacting smart

Kerr avon 14:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

lol... "could be"... more like "almost certainly is" Lordkazan 14:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Supreme_cmdr is quite obviously Smart that it is not funny anymore. The problem is that going through his edits, and as it is now hapenning, his main problem is not the werewolves link, but that anything said against Smart is "irrelevant" or "non consensual", and he deletes the sections which lead to a revert war. Smart has been a very bad boy, he has claimed a false Ph.D which in itself is a serious offence (academic fraud is punishable), he foul mouths individuals on a regular basis, self confessedly creates flame wars, and for supreme_cmdr to whitewash him is not acceptable, and there is no mention that anything critical of him cannot be posted in a wikipedia biography. I suggest that is supreme_cmdr continues these revert wars for the authorities to ban him. If you go through the period of time when Supreme_cmdr was not editing the wiki it is quite obvious that the article went on to better standards till supreme_cmdr ruined it all.Kerr avon 04:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I second the motion to ban Supreme_cmdr, and I'm giving him a test2a-n Lordkazan 05:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We should also do a WP:RFC Lordkazan 05:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the nature of supreme_cmdr's aggresiveness and hostility, its no surprise that a RFC against him has already been open, it is at [2]Kerr avon 07:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Supreme_cmdr has threatned to return with a anonymizer if banned and continue to edit [3], a statement which should have got him banned then and there, so banning him might not achieve much, yet it might be helpfull to show that he too must confirm to certain guidlines, and not merely twisting the wiki guidlines to suit his own advantage.Kerr avon 07:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, folks, there's a few things wrong, here. First, you can't "second" a motion to ban anyone. The ONLY way for someone to be banned is by ARBCOM decision (or, in more extreme cases, by personal intervention by Jimbo or things like that, not applicable here). This isn't a message board.

Second, there's absolutely no point in doing any more RFCs or RFMediations, they've both been done repeatedly, and they only bring non-binding, voluntary solutions. Those have uniformly failed at this page.

If anyone wants anyone else banned, let me warn you, it's a loooong process, you'll need to stick with it, and you're probably not going to get the result you want. Arbcom doesn't seem to like to keep anyone from contributing to WP except as a last resort, and they have many more creative ways of enforcing decisions. Oh, and by the way, it's not unheard of for BOTH parties in an arbcom to receive some sort of sentence, so, if you think you want to bring a case before them, I suggest you be on your best behavior, starting yesterday.

Thirdly, I know Cmdr always accused me of being a "Smart detractor," since I disagreed with him and that's his automatic response, but I never acted in that capacity here, and neither should anyone else, even if it seems that his actions need some "balancing out." Some of you seem to be directing your comments more towards Smart, the man, than Smart, the article; I humbly suggest you stow that behavior. There really should be no discussion of what horrible/awesome things Smart has/has not done on this talk page. WP deals only with information already published in some form by outside sources. Again, not a forum/message board.

If you're aware of these things already, please disregard this, it is not my intent to lecture. I hope only to give information where it is needed, to either assist you in getting what you want, or assist you in recognizing that you can't, so you can spend your time more productively.

Respectfully, Fox1 (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said Fox1, well said. You and I have had our share of head butting but you are - by far - one of the most reasonable opposition (at least toward me) here. Oh btw, I sent Smart an email about the picture, but he has yet to respond. Once he does, I'll be sure to let you folks know, but I'm not sure how to prove that he did in fact responded (either yah or nay for the picture). Any suggestions? 70.155.235.198 22:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well as you have time and again have proven to be familiar with Smart, we will take your word that a letter from smart giving permission to use that image in his wikipedia bio would be genuine. Of course the definite proof of something from anyone would be a GPG signed email, but i doubt that Smart is familiar with GPG signing.Kerr avon 10:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and what of direct quotations from posts Derek Smart has made? Lordkazan 13:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Fox1 thanks for your very infomative and well worded post. Well at least a block can be placed for supreme_cmdr if he continues his current behaviour of deleting info. The distinction between Smart the man and Smart the article is very vague. To be honest regarding Smart the man, the very name of Derek Smart is a after dinner joke in the gaming industry, he is known for sueing everyone under the sun (or at least threatening to do so), his continued poor quality of games, his foul mouthing everyone including our own LordKazan in the past, his fake Ph.D etc, the list is endless. Just check the top google articles for Smart, 90% of them are critical or satarical of him. A page on hitler for example would not be complete without mention of the horrible things done under his regime, likewise a bio on Smart would not be complete without a mention of the flame wars, Smart's false claims etc, it should be balanced and not twisted one sided like supreme_cmdr is trying to do. Kerr avon 16:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Revert due to non-consensus"?

Regarding the editor(s) who made the last few "reverts due to non-consensus", the WP guideline on consensus may be a useful read. Reverting away material that one doesn't agree with won't build consensus. An alternative might be to reword material that one believes isn't accurate or NPOV into a better statement, rather than propagate a revert edit cycle. -- Tomlouie | talk 19:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

True. But what is the point of doing a revert if only to change a word or two? The non-consensus reverts I have been making merely serve to restore the page to its previous non-consensus stage. I'm not interested in doing a revert (to that state), then changing a word or paragraph just to make my edit legit. The fact that I reverted to a non-consensus change should be evidence enough of my intent. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has any illusions about your censorist intent Lordkazan 14:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Quiet periods"

As everyone can see the period from 23/9/6 to 27/9/6 is very quiet, no revert warring, and the article is stable, mainly because supreme_cmdr has been indisposed from editing the wiki. Which again supports my statement that it is supreme_cmdr who by his deletions and aggressive behaviour is the root cause for the problems with this article. Just like Smart was the root cause for the flame wars, supreme_cmdr (who arguably is Smart himself) is the root cause for the so called revert wars here. Once supreme_cmdr appears on the scene he will hack the article the shreds and the revert wars will begin, which is why i suggested a temporary ban for a few days if he continues his non consensual reverts.Kerr avon 14:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

He's Back! and now has a test4a-n warning for his behavior. Lordkazan 18:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Noncompliant

Relying on links to forum posts is not acceptable - review WP:RS#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet ("Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources."). Stating "Despite numerous requests by critics to prove the authenticity of his Ph.D by providing the topic of the dissertation or the name of the institution Smart has so far failed to provide either" without a citation is a violation of WP:BLP. Stating "Due to the overwhelmingly negative response from the community however, Derek Smart quickly abandoned the idea." without citation is a violationg of WP:BLP. JBKramer 19:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You are wikilawyering. WP:RS does not cover every situation, infact it makes a point of saying it doesn't.

I asked about those sources in #wikipedia - everyone (But you) agrees that they are valid sources because we're dealing with direct quotations on forums which we can verify that the person is who they claim they are. The DISCUSSIONS cited are the documentation. your claim is basically like saying "a video tape of the person making those statements isn't a valid citation!" Lordkazan 19:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Please ask the individuals on IRC who agreed with you to weigh in here, please. I do not believe that forum posts are reliable sources. Additionally, the items I tagged with {{fact}} were unsourced. JBKramer 19:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If Derek's forum posts aren't notable enough to be cited by 3rd party press, I don't see why Wikipedia should be referencing them either. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Because they're facts? Because on both forums we can confirm the person is who they say they are? because it did raise a quite of a bit of controversy in those communities? I appreciate your input bro, but the simple fact of the matter is we KNOW it we him and we can confirm it was as well. (HLP is the biggest news/community site for FreeSpace) Lordkazan 19:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/17/0533221 Lordkazan 19:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves

We can confirm on both forums the person who claims to be DS is indeed DS Lordkazan 19:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"According to Slashdot, Smart is attempting to buy the Freespace rights from Interplay. As reported by Slashdot, discussion of this "turned particularly ugly" after Derek Smart posted on the main Freespace 2 fan site." Please review WP:OR. JBKramer 19:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

that's a good statement except it leaves out the fact he made legal threats -

we also know he never did buy the rights (from his own mouth)

we have direct links to quotations of him making threats, and the communities reaction to both his threats and comments - there is no reasonably basis to claim the poster is not Derek smart, and as I said before we can confirm that they are indeed derek smart (AFAIK). I have posted in the WP:RS talk page asking for input on this subject - using theoreticals and not specifically this topic. Lordkazan 19:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Forum posts are not reliable sources. Slashdot is. JBKramer 19:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

According to you, you are not a diety, you do not get to set wikipedia policy, you are not infalliable. There is no reasonable basis to deny the poster's identity as being the subject of the article, on HLP i can confirm the account is registered to his email account which is not possible without his approval. At AVault any user claiming to be him, that AV couldn't confirm to be him, would have been banned instantly. WP:RS speaks of "Self-publishing sources", when the users identity can be confirmed as being who they claim they are, then IMHO it counts as such and is a valid source for QUOTATIONS/summaries of quotations. Lordkazan 20:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources." JBKramer 20:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the entirety of WP:RS particularily this part Lordkazan 20:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it" JBKramer 20:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

More third party press on the freespace postings. Gamespot was willing to confirm the message board account as his, at any rate. Ehheh 20:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You can see the "according to slashdot," above, and you can clearly adapt it to according to gamespot and slashdot, or write it without attribution and instead footnote it only, now that it has multiple sources of some reliability. You cannot use these posts to eek other random forum posts into evidence - forums are not WP:RS. JBKramer 20:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that over at the Talk page for WP:RS several third parties have agreed that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the poster on those forums is indeed Derek Smart. Please see this. Lordkazan 03:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me there's no reason to bicker over whether the forum postings should be used if we can use Gamespot as a RS. Nandesuka 11:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Forum posts and searches

Forum posts are never RS, and database searches define OR. JBKramer 00:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that you have gone ahead and wholesale edited chunks without getting others opinion. The point i am trying to make is that we have different points of view here and rather than deleting others text and trying to create a edit war we should discuss and come to a consensus for our reasons. The Ph.D fraud is serious and should be addressed in the biography. At least a statement like "Derek Smart signes himself with a Ph.D" should be allowed. I will not give in to start a revert war over JBKramer's blatent Smart favoured edits, instead I would beg others and himself to come to a agreement on edits.

Kerr avon 00:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to come to a consensus, you will have to find WP:RS for all the claims you want to include. JBKramer 01:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ph.D et al

First of all i would beg anyone to not to go edit warring without having a consensus on certain matters like Ph.d and other points. Regarding the Ph.D it is a very highly regarded educational qualification and one has to work very hard to earn it. There is no doubt that Smart claims to have a Ph.D as can be seen fron his official sig. However when repeatedly asked on USENET he never divulged the college or the title of his thesis. If the Ph.D was genuine from a acredited college then what does he have to hide. Also online thesis searches have failed to highlight any such thesis which is highly significant in my opinion. I think that regarding the Ph.D controversy it would sufficy to say that Smart had a Ph.D and that online searches failed to find any evidence of a Ph.D which should let people draw their conclusions. I am unable to quote in the main article the links with regard to the Ph.D fraud due to google groups not used as a RS, but the following werewolves link [4] should be sufficient as a introduction to the controversy, the genuiness of the postings can be cross checked with a google search.

As a person I had to work hard (6 years of my life) to get my MD (I am a doctor in Sri Lanka), and I hate to see acadamic fraud. Since my degree is genuine I have no problem with posting a copy of them for anyone to see. So why did not Smart prove the guineness of his. Kerr avon 00:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to find a WP:RS for your claims about stuff. JBKramer 01:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because you cannot find it does not mean that it does not exist. This has been posted many times already. Like others who have tried in vein to keep this Wiki NPOV, I was party to the whole Usenet controversay. All you people are doing is bring that war into this Wiki. The sad thing of it is that the Wiki rules and guidelines are lax enough to allow this.

Just because you claim to be a doctor (in Sri Lanka of all places) does not mean anything and does not give you any credibiliy. In fact one would argue that someone posting anon in a Wiki and claiming to be a doctor is just as dubious.

His Ph.D. has never been the subject of any WP:RS debate; only Usenet and forum postings by people who are clearly his detractors and who have been doing this since he first appeared on the scene.

WarHawk 20:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If Smart genuinely has a Ph.D as he claims, why hasn't he provided a document or a link or at least the name of the institute from which he obtained it. If someone is genuine then he/she has nothing to fear and can provide the documents and put this matter to rest. All Smart has or had to do was to just post a scanned photo of a document proving the authenticity of his Ph.D, a easy thing since he has even posted photos of him purportedly holding a piece of metal from mars (werewolves site)! I fail to see why he can not do the simple thing as above.

As to my qualifications to being a doctor I will be more than willing to divulge the details of my registration at the Sri Lanka Medical council with a scanned image of my certificate if i was challenged as I have nothing to hide.

Ph.D or acadamic fraud is a serious offense, anyone can claim to have a Ph.D or anything but it is considered in poor taste in acadamic circles to do so under false pretenses.Kerr avon 00:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

His reasons and motivations are none of mine, yours or anyone's business. Are you planning on giving him a job? Has he held a position of authority which would warrant him making that information public? He doesn't have to prove anything to anyone. I don't see other doctorates going around proving (online scans no less) to the world that they are indeed bona fide Ph.D. holders.

Are you jealous or something? Is it because he is Black (well, he is mixed actually)? This Wiki is about Derek Smart, not his qualifications or perceived lackoff. Apart from that, academic fraud is a crime in the US. Smart is a public figure. So, uhm, for more than ten years now did it not occur to you that something would have been written somewhere by now about it? Those posts by you and his detractors in forums and stalker websites are nothing more than conjecture and hate filled posts.

So, his degree of lackof is not required in his Wiki because there are no WP:RS which cite any info for or against his degree or lackof. Once you find such an article, it can be discussed and a consensus reached as to its inclusion. Until then, there is no consensus.

You clearly do not know how Wiki works as others, including JBKramer have repeatedly pointed out what you're doing wrong in this Wiki. Apart from that, another editor WarHawk recently made some WP:NPOV edits. You immediately accused him of being a sock puppet of mine. Thats the same doctrine that goes on around here whereby once someone new shows up and goes against your opinions, you folks immediately assume that it is either me or Derek Smart.

As to your being a doctor in Sri Lanker, I don't believe it. But on the other hand, I am aware of WP:GF even if you're not.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

First of My dear Supreme_cmdr please do not make unwarranted and serious actions like accusing me of racism, it is a serious allegation and should be condemmed by everyone resposible. Like I said I am from Sri Lanka, and we are colored people too, we are not quite black but our color can be mentioned as Golden Brown, so I have nothing against black people or any color at all. So that puts to rest your wild allegation of racism.

I quite agree that the article is about Derek Smart, so it is important to include information about him like the longest running flame war in USENET history to which he played a major role, which can be evidenced that as soon as he left the USENET after many years of flaming, the flame wars died out.

About the Ph.D, what is important to realise is that anyone can claim to have something, for example I can add the letters F.R.C.P, which would mean that I am a fellow of the royal college of physicians which is a prestigious post and which I have not got, however if someone questions as to the genuineness of my claim, it is in good faith to submit the proof. If someone does not submit proof as to his educational claims then the genuiness of his claims has to be questioned. Since Smart blatantly claims to have a Ph.D we should mention it in his biography.

About my doubts as to me being a doctor, I will provide the necessary info soon.

Kerr avon

Listen to me carefully. It seems as if you're on some sort of vendetta against me or something. I don't have time for your bullshit. You have already been warned here by an admin and via email. Yet you continue. If you want war, its war I'll give you and we'll just turn your talk page into a battle ground. Instead of focusing on editing the Wiki, you're focused on engaging me in stupid discussions which have nothing to do with this Wiki and which violate WP:GF. A quick trip to Usenet has given me an indication as to who (the Sri Lanka thing was a dead giveaway) you are. In fact, you are one of the 'primary' proponents of the legacy flamewar against Smart and now you are here doing the same thing. Especially now that you foolishly think that I'm him. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You take WP:AGF as a right that transcends your behavior. Look specifically at the paragraph of the policy which reads, "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.". Your behavior is evidence enough (for me anyway, and I'd gamble Kerr avon's as well) to warrant no longer assuming good faith. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

SupremeCmdr/Warhawk's version

I note the following changes:

SC/WH's removal of - "which would be a truly revolutionary and immersive gaming experience," is a good change, as it would be WP:OR without a cite.

SC/WH's addition of "The prematurely released product" requires citation regarding the release timing.

The same with "in its then unfinished form"

Removing the sourced statements by Gamespy seems like a mistake to me.

I will continue shortly. JBKramer 13:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I was banned for 48hrs for war editing, so I have not made any recent changes until now. I have no idea who WarHawk is, but I'm not him. He too seems to have been banned for 24hrs for the same thing. WHAT is going on around here? Those WarHawk edits seem perfectly fine to me.

As to the "The prematurely released product", this is wide spread knowledge and a cite can probably be located. I'll go see if I can find one. That would also then address the "in its then unfinished form" version I think.

As to the removal of the GameSpy sourced statements. I just ran a DIFF and it appears as if it didn't have any relevant to the material that it was addressing. Which is probably why WarHawk removed it.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In the ATI interview, Smart mentions the "premature release" of the game. I have added that cite. I am looking for another one. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have re-added the GameSpy sourced statements which WarHawk removed in his WP:NPOV edit. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

second batch

1. Removing the note about the free release seems silly.
2. Removing the now sourced statments about the phD amd Freespace seems a mistake. JBKramer 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Who removed it? I can't even recall where it was to begin with. I'll go fix it now.
2. AFAIK, there weren't any sourced materials about his Ph.D. As to the Freespace issue, you are right, it should be added back in the "Online Controversy" section because it did spark a major online debate. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

consensus

This is never going to stop is it? After all the work we've put in this morning, Nandesuka thinks he can just come in and blank revert everything? Fine. I'm going to go and report this to an admin. This is just plain ridiculous.

Also, I want to point out that Lordkazan has had an altercation with Smart over the whole Freespace issue. So his edits, reverts and whatnot cannot be relied upon to be WP:NPOV or WP:GF.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well your edits cant be considered NPOV either as you too are a arguably Smart himself, or at the very lear a close associate of Smart's as you yourself have claimed. So if kazan's edits cant be releied upon, the same should apply to you. Also please dont deface user's talk pages like [5] with profanity.

Regardless of NPOV we should assume good faith in the edits.Kerr avon 06:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for setting Nandesuka straight and preventing the raping of this article. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

He didn't completely succeed in preventing the rape of the article: in particular, I notice that you keep trying to remove this relevant quote from a reliable source:

The initial release of the game was "a train wreck", setting the pattern for releases to come. Analysts commented that "Smart consistently overrates his own products and his own abilities."<ref name="Gamespy">[http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/september03/25overrated/index8.shtml "The 25 Most Overrated Games Of All Time"]</ref>

Perhaps you can discuss your wish to delete this text and the associated citation here on the talk page? Thanks! Nandesuka 12:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be obvious (maybe not to you). The excerpt fails the WP:NPOV test and bears no relevance to the scope of the paragraph. For example "setting the pattern for releases to come". By whose yardstick? Where is the WP:RS on that? Also, the GameSpy article was already quoted elsewhere and doesn't serve any purpose in that section. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the "setting the pattern for releases to come," as I agree that it's not really relevant at that point. However, the idea that a verifiable and reliable source describing a release as "a train wreck" is not important is goofy, as is the idea that since one Gamespy article was referenced in the article, we can't or shouldn't refer to a completely different Gamespy article. Whahuh? Nandesuka 12:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I noticed that you are still revert warring over the inclusion of the external link to the werewolves site, despite the fact that a clear consensus was expressed on this talk page that its inclusion is appropriate. I understand your arguments that including that link violates WP:BLP, but, again, your belief in this regard is an extreme minority opinon, as the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-01-12_Derek_Smart_external_link shows. Please stop. Nandesuka 13:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Classic Derek Smart

I was on Usenet looking for something when I came across a link (which I have now added to the article) to a reliable source that I thought was relevant. To see classic Smart in action, read this post to that blog. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be gratefull if a senior could help me in the following matters,

Supreme_Cmdr has repeatedly stated that he is not Derek Smart (just see above talk page). However when evidence surfaces regarding that both supreme_cmdr and Derek Smart have the same bellsouth ISP, and have had extremely similar IP adresses over the last two years [6], Supreme_Cmdr goes ahead and deletes it which is wrong. I am posting a excerpt below as I think supreme_cmdr cannot delete things on this page.

Supreme_Cmdr has made allegations against me, claiming that I was a major contributor to the flame war, and other unsubtantiated allegations against me [7]. I would be gratefull if he could name who I am as he mentions he knows my identity. I will then prove that I am not who i think he is. I fail to see how supreme_cmdr can accuse a Sri Lankan of having contributed to the infamous flame war, we are a small country and Smart was not notorious enough to be known here that well at that time.

He has also made a serious allegation of racism against me [8], accusing me of discriminating against colored people. He forgot that I too am a colored person, all of us Sri Lankans are, making allegations of discriminating against colour meaningless.

I would be gratefull if anyone senior could advise me or give supreme_cmdr a warning about this behaviour, serious allegations like racism etc against users should not be tolerated. I am willing to give complete evidence including my national identity card, my certificates as a medical practitioner to prove my identity if needed. I think supreme_cmdr/Derek Smart himself needs to be instructed to be civil. I am a new user and have made contributions to wikipedia and if Smart wishes to open a RFC against me, I would gladly wellcome it as I have nothing to hide.Kerr avon 15:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If you post this information anywhere again, I will ask that you be indefinetly blocked untill you stop posting this information. The real identity of wikipedia contributors is not an appropriate avenue for investigation - period. JBKramer 16:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please quote the relevant section of any wikipedia rule which forbids discovering the indentity of a person. I am unaware of such a rule, however I am a new user and I would accept such a guidline if it so existed. Also why have you ignored the serious allegation of racism [[9]] that Supreme_cmdr made against me. Supreme_Cmdr who is so obviously Smart himself that it isnt funny anymore has denied being Smart hundreds of times, and I feel that it is important that any evidence which favours Smart being Supreme_Cmdr should be made public and let anyone draw their conclusions.

Please go ahead and contact the admins about me as you have threatened, I would be more than happy to explain to them about how supreme_cmdr was allowed to make racist remarks against me, make unsubstantiated allegations (vide Sri lanka and usenet remark by him) and get away scot free, while evidence by me which links supreme_cmdr to Smart (which is available in the wikipedia for anyone to see) is threatened with censorship. If I was in america I would have sued Supreme_cmdr for defamation for calling me a racist, however since I live in a poor third world country I am unable to afford that luxury. However I hoped that some responsible senior person on wikipedia would have had the decency to have warned Supreme_cmdr about such allegations but alas it has not happenned.Kerr avon 17:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You either believe that I am accuratly telling you how things work, or you don't. I assure you, this is not the place to play internet detective. Stop now. JBKramer 17:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I will make no more postings regarding any Identity of Supreme_cmdr, not due to any of your threats but because I assume good faith on your part that such a policy exists and i would be glad to abide by it. However I have referred the matter to a higher authority as I would be gratefull for a solution to this problem. Even you can see that Supreme_cmdr's wild allegations against me that I was a key player in the flame war is comepletely wrong. Either he provides proof or he should retract the statements.Kerr avon 18:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fer frack's sake, will you please stop wasting people's time? Why don't you bring your foolish vendetta to me via email? This Wiki is not your personal soapbox and it certainly is not Usenet. Nobody made any racist remarks against you, so I have no idea wtf you're talking about there. If - as you say - you're a doctor (LMAO!!) in Sri Lanka, don't you have better things to do with your time, rather than burn it up on foolishness that won't get anywhere? You have already proven to everyone that you're not here to make any meaningful Wiki changes, but rather to further your agenda against myself and Smart (though you believe that we're the same person). Just stop and get on with life man. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 15:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on Werewolves link

Consensus cannot trump WP:EL. Why does the link to werewolves meet the requirements of WP:EL? JBKramer 19:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

'On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view.' Ehheh 19:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you believe the site adds enough value to overwhelm the fact that it is filled with unverified original research? Isn't there are better negative site, like an article from an online gaming mag or something? JBKramer 19:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe the Werewolves cite is an appropriate source for the truth of any of the contents contained therein; in that respect JBKramer is right. However, I believe it is an appropriate link to demonstrate the existence of the flamewar itself. It's a subtle line. I will fully support eliminating any use of the site to (for example), declare: "Derek Smart does not have a valid PhD (ref: werewolves)". But it seems to me that that is not how it is being used at the moment. Nandesuka 19:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(All of that being said, we absolutely should prefer links to online gaming magazines and "better sources" than some guy's website. I've been trying to do just that over the past week). Nandesuka 19:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If there was one single link which was within the scope of WP:RS, we would not be having this argument. The fact is that the Werewolves link fails every single criteria for its inclusion. Including the fact that as far as WP:BLP is concerned, it still doesn't meet the requirements of WP:EL.

Everyone knows that the Werewolves site is run by a noted Smart detractor and that it contains not only a wealth of WP:OR material but also material (which some would call libelous) which even if they were to be cut and pasted into this Wiki, would fail all such tests for their inclusion, in the absense of WP:RS.

You folks only want that site link in the article because it is the only one that makes any claims of Smart not having an accredited Ph.D. Obviously in his entire industry history, nobody cared enough to write about it.

Instead, they're busy writing about his online behavior, his abrasiveness etc. Why is that? Oh, thats right. Because any media which means the WP:RS criteria would be required to provide irrefutable evidence and proof that either Smart does not have an accredited Ph.D. or doesn't have such a degree at all. Media deemed to fall within WP:RS are held to a higher standard. There is no basis for the inclusion of that link. Like all other articles about Smart that are floating on the Net, anyone wanting to read it can go to that page on their own when they see it appear in an online search. It has no place in the Wiki and it will never be allowed to stand.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 19:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka, if you believe what you said (However, I believe it is an appropriate link to demonstrate the existence of the flamewar itself.) then why is the link needed when the CGW article which is not only about the flamewar but is also WP:CS is already included in the Wiki? Supreme_Cmdr may be right in his assumption that the only reason you guys want that Werewolves link is because it attacks Smart and is a compilation of such attacks all in one place. I have looked at that site over the weekend and it is not a catalog of the flame wars. It barely mentions it but is designed to take snippets from Smarts online antics and spin them to the authors own spin. That Huffman guy makes some serious (email fraud, racist remarks, forgery, NPD, academic fraud) allegations (all without any shred of tangible evidence whatsoever) which in all honesty he should have been sued for. Earlier someone asked about how the site can be about the flame war when in fact this Huffman person also talks about Smart being a narcisistic person etc and makes all sorts of allegations? I for one do not believe that given his notoriety that some source would not have picked up this ball and run with it by now. Maybe they know something that we do not. That being that Smart may possess a Ph.D. but albeit an unacredited one that is not from a degree mill as Huffman claims (without any proof of same). Smart has been all over the mainstream media. He has been in countless interviews, articles, events etc. This is not some guy who people get to forget. Yet we have one person (with a vendetta and obvious agenda) pushing a bunch of allegations of which there is _zero_ evidence to back up. This is the problem with the net whereby anyone can put up a page and libel another person to their hearts content, leaving the other person to explain and deal with it. To me, thats just wrong. Very wrong. WarHawk 22:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There are several reasons why Supreme_cmdr would want the werewolves link removed, one is of course pride - He wouldnt want anything critical of Smart as he has repeatedly shown. Secondly it might be to lower google's page ranking. The werewolves site has been cross referenced on so many articles about derek smart that a search for derek smart on google [10] leaves the werewolves site at 4th place. Which itself is a indicator as to how heavily cross referenced and popular the werewolves site is in relation to derek smart, and is possibly the strongest evidence supportive of its inclusion in the wikipedia article.

When one goes through the articles on Smart, one can see that he has been part of the longest running flame war on USENET (virtually any article about him or reviewer of his games mentions this aspect), his messages on USENET shows that he has never substantiated the evidece of his Ph.D, he has routinely criticised people, etc in short he has been a very bad boy. Smart's only reason for fame is of his ability to be controversial and flame, rather than his ability as a game designer as none of his games have been hits, or received above average scores. Therefore one should agree that any biography of Smart should include evidence of the Flame wars on the usenet to which he was a major contributor. For example the following article [11] about notorious game developers features Derek Smart too, among notables like John Romero George Broussard etc who unlike Smart have developed best selling games. The site comments on this aspect too "The man has never made a good game, yet he is still a well-known developer, probably because of his immense ego and ability to single handedly put the entire PC gaming community into an uproar every time he types out an arrogant post on a message board." .

There werewolves site contains a compendium of Smart's USENET portings (they can be crosschecked with google groups to ascertain there authenticity if needed) with commentrary critical of Smart as well as humorous too [12]. It is extensively cross referenced by most of the articles about Smart [13] which specifically quotes the werewolves site as "the intricacies of the flame war are very complicated, but there's a good summary of them". Therefore it follows that if a mention of the flame wars is acceptable in the Smart Bio, then naturally a mention of the werewolves site which according to gamespy et al, is "a good summary of the flame wars" should be included in the wiki bio.Kerr avon 11:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

All of the above is irrelevant. In fact, your points alone are exactly the reason why that link is not allowed by Wiki guidelines. If you have a beef to pick with me, take it to email and STOP this nonsense which you've already blown out of proportion.

That link will never ever be allowed to remain because it is not allowed under Wiki policy and guidelines. Deal with it and move on because we'll be doing this until the cows come home and you'll never have it your way.

Since you have already admitted to being a new editor, you need to learn how to do things and why, instead of just jumping in in order to further your vendetta. Shouldn't you be working on your user page so that we can see what kind of doctor you are in Sri Lanka and why you think that whatever you say should be accepted (LOL!!) because of that?

Anyway, now that an RFc has been filed against you, you should go over there and focus on defending it instead of turning this Wiki, my talk page, WarHark, JBKramer and others' talk pages as your stomping ground.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a point of note, the Werewolves link was first added on 12-03-04 and has been contested since. It was never in the original article. Hence, regardless of WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:BLP until a consensus is reached, should not be in the article. It should remain in its default state of not included in the article. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be also noted that a straw poll was held and the majority were for inclusion of the werewolves link. It should also be noted that the only person who has vehemently opposed inclusion on the werewolves link and who has been a major source of the edit wars here is the SPA Supreme_Cmdr Special:Contributions/Supreme_Cmdr who has edited nothing but this article and Derek Smart's games since he came here.Kerr avon 14:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You are 100% wrong there dude. First of all, straw polls are non-binding and as such cannot be relied upon to push a consensus. Second of all, many editors have clearly opposed the addition of that link. That goes all the way back to 2004. But since you refuse to do any research or go back in the archives, you cannot know that. Showing Supreme Cmdr contributions does not prove anything because there is no Wiki requisite that says someone has to participate in other Wiki editing if they choose not to. And to say that he is the major source of edit wars here is a WP:PA violation. Apart from the fact that your claim is patently untrue, it is yet another accusation that you seem to spend your time levying on editors here. You consistently violate WP:CIVIL and seem to have no regard for other opinions but your own. WarHawk 18:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

He's not 100% wrong. SC is not the only one who has opposed the inclusion, but I think SC's arguably the only one who's been "vehement" about it. In regards to WP:STRAW, no they are not binding, but their sole purpose is for finding consensus. Unfortunately, both "sides" here have claimed "victory" by playing this one side or another. Really, nothing on Wiki is binding except clear policy application and, failing that, arbitration. It is still helpful to know that more folks vote for the inclusion than for against it.

As to SC being an WP:SPA, no there's no rule, but it suggests POV and an outright agenda in SC's case. It is a valid observation on a user's behavior.

And I'm sick and tired of WP:NPA being trotted out every time someone has an accurate characterization of another user's behavior. At the time of this writing, SC's is a SPA, as well as yours. It's not a "personal attack", it's a fact. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Werewolves

The werewolves site is on the fringe of an acceptable EL. If every article about smart references the werewolves link, couldn't we just reference the articles from Reliable Sources and not link the werewolves site? JBKramer 13:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That might be acceptable and possibly within WP:EL. Which WP:RS do you have in mind? Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Therein lies the rub. You will not find a single WP:RS article that fits the bill. Believe me, I have done extensive checks on no less then six search engines. Not a single such article is to be found. WarHawk 18:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the "six different search engines" that you mentioned have not included the most popular one which is google. I have highlighted several sections below multiple sources which fullfill the WP:RS criteria which reference the werewolves site. Here is my edit highlighting the sites [14]. If the werewolves site was not extensively crossreferenced as shown above it would never be in the fourth place on a google search for "derek smart".Kerr avon 23:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey bud, obviously you do not know how Google actually works. The Werewolves site is not in the top four because of that. It is there because for a time it was a heavily visited/edited site. The reason that this Wiki is now top of the search is because of all this traffic based editing. So, no, it is not extensively cross-referenced. You can easily prove this to yourself by doing a Google search for it. Come on now, do you think you are dealing with idiots around here? We are all educated people who know what the deal is. Especially as it pertains to you and this Smart fellow. btw, did I read somewhere that you claimed to be a doctor? Doesnt that position hold a level of competency, honor and respect? I have to say that your vehement posts seem to indicate otherwise. Lets not discuss the fact that thus far none of your edits have been allowed to stand. WarHawk 15:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Warhawk, I invite you to read Wikipedia's excellent article on PageRank, which is 'how Google actually works'. Ehheh 16:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with PageRank, thank you very much. That is particularly the reason why Kerrs statement is 100% incorrect. Since you folks do not like dealing in facts let me quote it again:

"extensively crossreferenced as shown above it would never be in the fourth place on a google search for "derek smart"

The fact that the Werewolves page shows up in search for Derek Smart has nothing to do with the above statement.

And as JBKramer stated, regardless of that fact, it does not meet with the criteria for WP:RS and I would say neither WP:EL because of the stringent requirements for editing WP:BLP articles.

WarHawk 18:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is the crossreferencing which raises the PageRank. One can infer that the werewolves site is at least linked to by more (or higher-PageRanked) sites than the those links that are lower in the list. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong again. Example: This Wiki is now the top most rank on Google and other searches for Derek Smart. So who is cross-referencing it enough to have boosted it to that top spot? My guess is nobody, since you are wrong. The Werewolves site is now number 5, with two of Smarts sites at number 3 and 4 respectively. WarHawk 21:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"My guess is nobody, since you are wrong."? Touche. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This wiki about Smart is indeed extensively cross referenced contrary to Warhawks distortions, here are some notewarthy links (many mention that the flame war part two is occuring on the wiki!)

[ http://www.technopinoy.com/?p=155]

[ http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/16103]

Even Derek Smarts forums have referenced this page [15]. There are more links, that is the reason ie cross referencing which has boosted this wiki to the number one spot. The werewolves site [16] is currently at the third place in a google search for "derek smart", which shows how extensively cross referenced werewolves is and why it should merit inclusion as a external link to the wiki.Kerr avon 16:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You're still wrong. As if there was any doubt about that.Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Pagerank does not a reliable source make. Please focus on the question that I asked up at the tippity top. Thanks. JBKramer 16:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ehheh was not addressing WP:RS or your question. WarHawk's claim about 'how Google actually works' was incorrect and the linked article proves that point. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To address your question up top, "Why does the link to werewolves meet the requirements of WP:EL?" - First, to pick nits, WP:EL is a guideline and not a policy, therefore there aren't any "requirements"--in the strictest sense of the word--to be met. Be that as it may, the link hits most of the "for" points brought out in WP:EL. Number 3 (currently) in the "What should be linked to" section is the strong point, though. This heated discussion proves that the topic has multiple points of view. And since this is a "prominent" site link (given the popularity of it on searches for the subject), I think it fits that point perfectly. I think because of the controversy surrounding the subject, a direct link is required, as opposed to settling for linking "the articles from Reliable Sources and not link the werewolves site". Those against inclusion of the link point out #2 under "Links normally to be avoided". I'd respond to that by saying that the link is not being used as a source for any statements made in the article, only as another point of view on the character of Smart and the existence of the "flame war". - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Most recent revert warring

Please justify your version below. JBKramer 12:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, and let me make this perfectly clear - anyone who adds or removes the werewolves link falls one notch on my scale of good editors. It's pure editing via brute force. JBKramer 13:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka's version

• Intro section needs the loonygames cite.
• "The product, which according to Smart was prematurely released" - direct from the cited source, relevant to the issue at hand.
• Removal of "lauded Smart's work and efforts and further" from "Take Two president Ryan Brant lauded Smart's work and efforts and further announced that the matter had been resolved." - It's a settlement announcement. That clause makes more of the standard backslapping than is relevant.
• Removal of "a better score" from "The game received a better score average in several game magazine reviews." (1) "received a better score average" is poor and clumsy English, and (2) I don't believe that claim is actually proven unless you assume that the average score is 50. That's unwarranted. (If the intent is to compare the latter game to the earlier game, the sentence needs to be rewritten completely)

Hope that helps. Nandesuka 12:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot read loonygames at my current location (firewall), which is why I removed the link in my attempt at compromise. Could you describe the article? I agree generally with the rest of your remarks, except I do not consider it our place to describe the ratings as "average" or "a better score." JBKramer 12:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Kerr added that link to Loonygames because it the self-editorial in which Smart's credentials are in his intro sig. To me it bears no relevance and as someone already pointed out, making the Ph.D. an issue would require a WP:RS cite. If they're going to now add his credentials, there is nary a reason to link to a news brief. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As per your suggestion, I have edited the wording of the ratings. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The looney games is important for several reasons, it is a official correspondence by Smart which shows his inclusion of the much contested Ph.D, as well as it is Smart's account of the diasaster that was the bc3000 ad release. For the above reasons it should be included.

It is already included elsewhere in the article and serves no basis being included in his credentials because his credentials are neither in dispute nor are they contested by any entity deemed to be WP:RS or even sane. No, a noted detractors website as well as Usenet and forum posts by a bunch of detractors do not count. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

JBKramer: You may be correct in your argument that you consider it our place to describe is games as average, mediocre etc, then shall we say that gameranking etc al gave the game a cumulative rank of xx%. That would allow us to be neutral.

Supreme Cmdr's version

What I think is happening now that with Lordkazan on a perma-block, both Nandesuka and Kerr seem to be making minor edits (and removing the contested Werewolves link which was never allowed since this Wiki was first started) in order to justify edits which would circumvent WP:3RR. If you compared both their first edits of today and my last edit of yesterday (which WarHawk also edited), you will see that the edits they made are largely unwarranted and irrelevant. Nandesuka for his part has already been warned several times by an admin to stop blanket reverts. So this, to me, is his latest attempt at circumventing that.Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributors. Kazzan is not permablocked. JBKramer 13:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Also, LordKazan seems to be autoblocked as his request for it to be removed was denied. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Kerr Avon's version

I cite my justification for including the werewolves site, which is a compendium of information regarding derek smart's usenet postings during the great flame wars of the 90's, the evidence that I posted above [17], namely,

1. Derek Smart's claim to fame as a game developer lies not in the quality of his games (all of them have been of average rating at the best), but due to his controversial nature of engaging in flaming in the USENET and various onlinme forums [18].

Nonsense. The ratings for his games have gone as high as over 80% in the leading gaming mags. Further, reviews are based on a single user opinion and are not scientific. So you assumption is baseless.Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please cite us the relevant leading gamming magazine's which gave Smart's games more than 90%. You might well know that >90% rankings are given to critically acclaimed classics like Morrowind ,Oblivion, Battlefield 1942. None of Smart's games are in the same class or have been critically acclaimed by the majority. So please cite the relevant leading game magazines which have given the purpoted >90% rating for his games as you claim.Kerr avon 13:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That was a typo. I meant to typo 80% Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite a convinient typo I think! Still >80% is a high score for a game indeed. Please cite the relevant leading game magazines' which gave >80% rating for his games.Kerr avon 14:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Don't you know where the 8 & 9 keys are on the keyboard? No? Then I ask that you please take a look. As to the rating, if you actually did the research, you'd find them yourself. Thats what Wiki is about. No Silver spoon here. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You made the claim, I did search but I am unable to come across any leading online game magazines which have given more than 80% to his games, on the other hand most of the reviews by respected magazines were constructively critical of his games. Since you made the claim its upto you to submit the evidence rather than sidestepping the issue. The honest fact is that Smart has never made a game which has been critically acclaimed by the majority and neither has he made a game which has had mainstream acceptance. His only claim to be notable is his ability to attract controversy by online flaming and threatening lawsuits [19] against everyone. The frank fact is that he is even unable to find a publisher due to been shunned by publishers after lawsuits with Take two, Dreamcatcher etc and has had to now resort to online retailing of his games.Kerr avon 16:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As a non-partisan observer, I took the liberty of pulling up every game review linked from bc3000ad.com. Out of 54 links, 35 linked to reviews which provided scores. Out of those 35 (16 for BCM, 14 for UC, and 5 for AWA), none of the grades were equivalent to greater than 80 percent. 15 were in the 70s, 9 in the 60s, and so on. Since one would assume Smart would include his best reviews, one would expect that a review over 80% would be found in one of those links. However, no such evidence exists. Hopefully this will suffice as adequate research. 70.137.186.120 02:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of reviews at the 80% mark but none "over 80%" that I can see. Maybe it was a typo. Even if SC had said "over 75%" that would have been valid for his argument because anything above 50% is a 2.5/5 the same aggregate since his point was that his games have received high scores and not as bad as Kerr is trying to make them out to be.WarHawk 16:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So SC has made two convienant typo's. First of all he cliamed more than 90% score, then when pointed out the ludicrousness of that claim, he claimed a typo and reduced it to 80%, and now you who are a SPA claim that the 80% was a typo. Its better to tbe honest and admit that Smart has never made a acclaimed game, his games are notable for being critically panned, his reputation can be judged from the fact that when he offered to obtain the freespace licence from interplay, it created such a furour, being featured on slashdot even and the freespace fanbase told him to drop the idea.Kerr avon 03:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You are still making baseless claims which have no basis in reality nor based on any facts whatsoever. Which is hardly surprising.

Why does he has to make a critically acclaimed game exactly? Where did he or anyone claim such? Is he the only developer to make a game that does not reach that status? What about all the other multi million dollar flops in the gaming industry? Why are you singling him out?

There is nothing honest about what you are posting. They are the same tainted, twisted and distorted material that detractors are notable for. The fact that his games are widely reviewed, makes him money (obviously since he has since developed eight games since 1996) and are covered in the mainstream print and online media when thousands of other games go ignored and not covered is proof that you are wrong.

There is nothing frank about your assumptions as to why his games are online. He like most indie devs chose to sell his games online because the PC business is getting smaller and it is harder to get niche games on the shelves. As well as the fact that they make more money by bypassing the publishers who usually take a bigger chunk, do not pay royalties on time (if at all) etc.

There is a reason why there are dozens of online distribution sites currently online and he has his games on four of the top tier ones, including Windows Marketplace. Publishing games for boxed distribution is no different than selling it online. You would be foolish to think otherwise, considering that the likes of Matrix Games among others have been doing it for so many years. How do you explain that Turner (not a small company by any means) chose several of his games for their catalog? Do you think it is because they are crappy, do not have an audience etc? You probably would think that.

Your claim that he has chosen to sell his games online because of lawsuits is just as false. Even Dreamcatcher who he sued over Universal Combat, signed him a year later for his A World Apart follow up. How do you explain that? Let me quote it for you:

British publisher agrees to publish Universal Combat: A World Apart despite prior legal battle with developer Derek Smart and 3000AD..

And how do you explain the fact that he once again rescinded the license? How do you explain that even after all that, he still managed to sign his games on Direct2Drive, Digital River, Windows Marketplace etc?

All you are doing is vehemently attacking him because you clearly have an agenda. Which is why you and the now blocked Lordkazan exhibited similar behavior and seem to be only here for that reason alone instead of furthering the Wiki with factual edits.

This is not your soapbox so you need to stick to the Wiki article and stop this destructive behavior.

WarHawk 21:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lordkazan isn't blocked. Why do you and Supreme Cmdr keep saying he is? Ehheh 21:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

When SC posted this morning that he was blocked, I checked and it does look like he is still blocked.WarHawk 21:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Warhawk, despite your huge rant above you are not addressing the point that I made above. I have mentioned that Smart's claim to fame lies not due to the quality of his games as he has not made a single critically aclaimed game, but due to he legendary flaming ability. Supreme_Cmdr then said that Smart's games recived more than 90% from critics, which he then reduced saying Smart's games have received more than 80%. Yet neither he nor you (whowho has edited nothing but Smart's pages) have been able to highlight such a high ranking review from a leading games magazine. All of his games have received average to medicore scores on aggreagete sites like gamerankings.com et al. Remeber we are discussing as to what has made Smart notable. There are thousands of game developers are are indies, who have never made popular games, and they are not notable. We know nothing of them. We only know so much about Smart because of his controversial and confrontational nature rather than his games. Just see the game reviews of universal combat by leading magazines, all of them start by mentioning Smart's controversial nature, with one comparing him to the incredible hulk!Kerr avon 23:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid all the lengthy rhetoric and stick to facts. The undeniable fact is that Smart has not made a single good game during his lengthy career, and his sole claim to fame in the gaming industry lies in his confrontational and controversial nature which has been highlighted on virtually most of the articles that mention either him or his games (see below), thus the werewolves site which is often quoted as the most thorough compendium of information regarding Smart's Flame wars should be included.Kerr avon 23:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

2. Every major article about Smart or his games mentions either the great flame war, or mentions the controversial nature of Smart. Even the following FAQ about bc300ad mentions it [20].

Nonsense. That is a blanket statement which you can't possibly backup. If you can, then you time is better spent doing just that. Another example why Wiki has guidelines. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just do a google search for derek smart and read the leading articles, almost all the mention smart's controversial nature, flame wars etc. If required I will provide a lengthy list.Kerr avon 13:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

None of which are WP:RS. Show us just one and which hasn't already been included in the Wiki Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you asked here are some game reviews of universal combat by leading game reviewers, all mention the controversial nature of smart :

1. "Whether you’ve heard of him or not, Derek Smart has consistently been a very hot subject to gamers at large, causing more than his fair share of controversy attempting to defend his games on forums or newsgroups, often leading to flame wars." [ http://www.gamershell.com/pc/universal_combat/review.html ]

2. "When the name Derek Smart is mentioned, one’s mind tends to conjure up two vivid images. The first is that of the incredible Hulk engaged in his usual activities of spirited screaming, stomping and most importantly, smashing. Nobody can fault the outspoken game designer behind the Battlecruiser series for being so relentlessly dedicated to his vision of the ultimate sci-fi simulation, but nobody can deny that the man can get quite angry at times (and you won’t like him when he gets angry)." [ http://www.dignews.com/review.php?story_id=2993]

3. "The developer, Derek Smart – himself no stranger to controversy regarding his games" [ http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=17055].

The list goes on and on and on and on...the list is virtually huge, any mention of Smart includes his controversial nature.

You are clearly missing the point dude. What you posted does not even come close to supporting the argument. By your posting you are saying that Howard Stern is famous for being an asshole (because some people say so) instead of for being a notable media personality. Or that Jack Thompson is famous for being an asshole (because some people say so) instead of for being a notable Florida attorney. How about Jerry Fallwell? Why those examples? Well because vocal and highly visible personalities and celebrities tend to have their lives mixed in with their work in almost every single thing that is written about them. So how does that make Smart, clearly a a game industry celebrity and personality, any different from any other colorful personality?WarHawk 23:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It is you who are dodging the point. Smart is not a "game industry celebrity" as you claim, a term which can be applied to greats like John Carmack, he is famous in the industry for his notoriety and is a after dinner joke.Kerr avon 00:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems as if you are hell bent on turning this Wiki talk into a personal soapbox. So you are going to have to continue this on your own. Your points are based on speculation and personal opinion. None of them are based on fact or reality. Your after dinner joke comment is also an WP:CIVIL and WP:PA violation as well and has not place in this discussion. I dunno but maybe over there in Sri Lanka you folks spend your after dinner time to tell jokes about Smart. Here in the US we spend our valuable time on more worthy things. Before I sign off, let me leave you with the definition of the word celebrity because you do not seem to know what the word means. WarHawk 15:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is interestin to see that Supreme_Cmdr who is banned currently, and you share common traits of using words like "turning this Wiki talk into a personal soapbox". It is also interesting to know that Warhawk's activity mushrooms when Supreme_Cmdr is banned. All I can say is just check out some of the links above, all of them redicule Smart's persona.Kerr avon 03:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

3. Most of the articles about Smart reference the werewolves site[[21]], making the werewolves site the 4th google ranked result [22] for the words "Derek Smart". The werewolves site in the previous link about Smart at gamespy is described as "the intricacies of the flame war are very complicated, but there's a good summary of them".

Nonsense. Show us one single WP:RS article that references it. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[[[Gamespy]]] Is a reliable source WP:RS.

Yes, but you said "Most of the articles about Smart reference the werewolves site". Newsflash! "One" does not equal "most"". Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You said "show us at least one single" article, had you requested multiple sources I would have showed them. However since you asked here are some...

1. [game spy http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/june03/dumbestmoments/readers/index2.shtml]

2. [3000ad FAQ http://www.capsu.org/bc3k/2.html]

3. [Something Awfull http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2010]

4. [Game Fan site http://www.alcyone.com/max/links/games.html]

The list goes on...

Give me a break!! NONE of those - apart from GameSpy (which is already listed) - is WP:RS. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the context. --ElKevbo 14:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

5. There is no evidence that inclusion of the link would violate the wiki BLP guidlines, nor has there been a consensuas for the exclusion of the link. On the contrary a straw poll showed that the majority prefer the link to be included.

There are tons of evidence already posted here in this Wiki by myself and others. Because of your vendetta, you are just jumping on the "bashing" bandwagon of those who want it included as an attack piece. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stick to facts and avoid unecessary psersonal attacks which do nothing but cloud the issue at hand.

If you don't know the meaning of "personal attacks", please do look it up and stop making unwarranted accusations once again.Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You accused me of having a vendetta, that according to the queens eglish that I was thought classifies as a personal attack. I will not discuss this aspect further as I will avoid entering into personal attacks.Kerr avon 14:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Your actions have exibited thus. Please read WP:PA before you go around throwing accusations which seems to be your mantra. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

4. Therefore in any complete biography of Smart a mention of the Flame wars should be made, and the best and most quoted referenced site for the Flame wars is the werewolves site. That is my argument for the justification of including the werewolves site in smart's biography.Kerr avon 13:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Now go and read WP:BLP in its entirety. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you do the same too and highlight the relevant section which explicitly forbids the werewolves site to be included.Kerr avon

I don't have to because it has already been beaten to death. Go in the Wiki (and its archives) and read the postings by myself and others. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a new and important discussion, for once we are contructively trying to solve a problem thanks to the initiative shown by JBKramer, so it would be in the interests of us all if you could post a excerpt of the above claims that you make.Kerr avon 14:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is Wiki. It has already been discussed, researched and posted. Go and look it up. I'm not doing your work for you. If you can't do the research, you shouldn't be on Wiki. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen you refer to WP:BLP plenty times, but I don't see any relevant mention of external links in there, and I've a sneaking suspicion it doesn't exist. As any scholar knows, if you make a claim based on a piece of writing, it's YOUR job to back it up with a specific pointer to the text you're referring to. Any PhD student who said 'X is true, now go do the research' would be kicked out of grad school sharpish. You should either tell us what part of WP:BLP warrants excluding this link or risk having this particular argument of yours ignored. --Aim Here 03:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What is hapenning is that both Supreme_Cmdr and Warhawk, spew forth a lot of rhetoric and wiki guidlines to substantiate there view, however when contructively asked to substantiate there claims they are either silent or spew forth more rhetoric to cloud the issue. So far as per JBKramer's suggestion, we have refrained from adding the werewolves link till we come to a consensus. SC or warhawk have not submitted reliable arguments against the exclusion of the link, except trying to cloud the issue at hand with personal attacks etc etc.Kerr avon 03:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"non scientific aggregates" et al

Supreme_Cmdr has mentioned gamerankings.com aggregate scores as "non scientific". I fail to understand how a elemntary simple mathematical calculation of obtaining a average can be called unscientific. So that info was removed pending discussion as to why is should be included.

It is not a scientific aggregate. If you know what that actually means that is. Even so, a lot has been written (even in the latest issue of Computer Games Magazine about how point scores could possibly be relied upon. WarHawk 12:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If you claim that it is not scientific, then it is upto you to discuss as to what exactly is in your definition a scientific aggregate.Kerr avon 13:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but thats not how it works. You can't prove a negative. i.e. it is not a scientific calculation in much the same way polls, by their very nature, are not considered scientific. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "almost entirely unplayable", is too diplomatic and doesnt mean anything. For example if your windows machine just allowed you to type a single letter before crashing would you call windows "almost entirely unusable"? The game was unplayable period. Even Smart in his looney games editorial acknowledged that much.

The game was playable for the most part. If it was not playable, it could not have been reviewed long enough for the dozens of reviews (good, bad or otherwise) to have been written. As a matter of note, not all the reviews of BC3K were scathing. You might want to actually do the research before editing the article. WarHawk 12:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Why then did Smart himself claim that it was unplayable in his loonygames highlighted letter?Kerr avon 13:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Unplayable is subjective. Besides, this is what he said "From that point on, I knew that my life as I knew it was over. The game shipped and it was unplayable out of the box. The first patch I did and released a few days after I returned was based on the version I had left on the Take Two BBS. It brought some stability to the game. However the damage was already done. " Obviously the game was playable to some extent, hence the addressed stability issues cited. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

General observations

I've just done some cleanup of the article; there's probably more to do that I've missed. As far as the inclusion of the controversial link goes, I am strongly against it. The article already arguably makes too much of a peripheral issue: the subject's involvement in defending his products in on-line forums. To go to the extreme of including an external link about this would be totally disproportionate. The fact that the link is to some extent an attack site with unsubstantiated theories about Smart's conduct, etc., makes it even worse. Smart may well have been foolish in descending to the level of getting involved in these on-line controversies with his detractors, but that is beside the point. What makes him notable is simply that he is the author of the games in question. Much of the discussion on this talk page seems to me to lack a sense of proportion. I can't say too strongly that if you are here to attack Smart's reputation or try to discredit him personally, rather than to write a clear, factual article about his career, then you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is all about as well as the spirit and intent of the BLP policy. Metamagician3000 11:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is precisely what a lot of us (frustrated, some have stopped editing. See archives) have been saying all along. I only recently got involved in this Wiki based on a post I saw at Quarter To Three forums. I (as others in the industry) am quite familiar with Smart and his controversial nature. Yes, he was foolish enough to get involved in defending himself and his products but most of us never get that luxury due to company policies and all that. But as someone who also has published products (I work for a large game publisher), I can very well understand his motivation.

A lot of people (myself included) have great respect for a man who had a vision and decided that against all odds that he was going to pursue that vision. So his first attempt failed, but that did not stop him did it? Society has always been about kicking a man when he is down and that is what happened to Smart in his early industry years. How many of us can say that we would have survived something like that? Especially when you consider how many studios have closed down, publishers gone out of business and most developers never heard from again. Look at the disgraceful exit from EA that befell Richard Garriott and the controversy surrounding his final work. What about John Romero and others who have had similar disasters and with other peoples money I might add. If you go back and look at the history of those devs, it is the same story. There are those who lambast them daily and frequently. The difference being that they are not Derek Smart; so they just dont respond.

As to his credentials, who needs a Ph.D. to work in the game industry? His accomplishments in the area of game development speak for themselves even if Smart was a recluse who people never got to hear from. I dont think most people have any idea what it is to actually design, develop, release and support a game. So whether he possess the degree (unaccredited or otherwise) or not is for him and his peers (or whoever wants to hire him) to discuss. As a professional myself, I can say that without a doubt he possesses a degree of that nature. I do not understand why people fail to realize that this man has been in the industry since 1989. A LOT has been written about him in every major online and print mag. Even Computer Gaming World went to visit him in Florida (for their article on his online personality) and wrote nothing but _positive_ things about him. If there was a shred of evidence that he did not have a Ph.D. (accredited or otherwise), not an affable fellow in person etc, it would have been news by now. It is my guess that the media, his business partners, publishers etc know something that we do not and that the first one to make a mistake with that is going to be hit with a major lawsuit. Suing a corporation is more of a bigger event than suing some detractor web stalker. I cannot imagine anyone given Smart credit for being stupid. And that is probably because he is not.

How can you say that Smart posesses a Ph.D? Have you seen it? Has it been verifiable? Can you post a scanned certificate of his thesis? Can you even at the very least post a link to a online citation or reference of his thesis? If you just do that and backup your claims, I will give you my solemn word as a physician that I will not edit the Smart article again.Kerr avon 13:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote again. And if I cannot say that he has one because I have not seen it, how came you in turn say that he does not have one? Can you prove either case?

And please stop calling yourself a physician. Nobody cares anymore and the fact that you keep bringing this up just proves the contrary. Since you have been here, you have yet to provide proof (as you yourself suggested) that you are anything but some guy on Wiki. Saying that you are the direct decendant of Ghengis Khan is not going to make your edits or pointless commentary any less irrelevant, hateful, libelous or uncivil. From all your posts it is quite clear that you have a beef with Smart so your motives are clear. So, we get it. But all we are saying is that this is _not_ the place for the vendetta that you seem to be propagating. This is not Usenet or some free-for-all forum

WarHawk 00:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

As your other half, Supreme Commander, has said "How can you prove a negative?". If nobody can verify that Derek has a PhD (which would be a simple case of Derek saying where and when he got it and someone checking with the university) then mention of a PhD shouldn't be in the article as per Wikipedia's verifiability criterion, even in the highly unlikely event it turns out to be true. Of course if there's verification either way, then his PhD, or his fibbing, may be mentioned in the article, as applicable. --Aim Here 09:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does anyone need to prove that he has a Ph.D or not? For starters, that is not what this Wiki is about. Lets not even get into the fact that it is only an issue to his detractors and nobody else. He says that he has a Ph.D. He has demonstrated enough skills (in his work of course) to prove that I think. So, you either believe him or you don't. I think its only relevant to anyone who is thinking of doing business with him or hiring him in order to ensure that they're getting what they're paying for. Given his various industry deals, media exposure etc, I am quite satisfied that if he says he possesses one, accredited or not, I'll take his word - as well as his industry contributions - for it and leave it at that. Heck, the man's work in AI has been written about in more places than I care to dig up (they're in the Wiki articles archives due them being removed at some point from the external links section). A lot of people (media, gamers, industry people etc) recognize his efforts as well as his contributions in his field, regardless of whether he has a Ph.D. or not. Once again, the only people making a big deal out of it, are those (like you, Kerr, Lordkazan) who use it to attack him based on libelous crap they've read on a notorious Derek Smart stalker's website.Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 17:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? We need proof of an asserted fact because this is an encyclopedia. We shouldn't need to explain that to you and this shouldn't even be a point of contention. I question your sincerity in editing this or any other Wikipedia as you clearly understand our core policies and guidelines yet apply them capriciously and with different standards based on your own POV and agenda. --ElKevbo 17:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Any unbiased person reading that Werewolves link as well as the past Usenet (where Smart no longer posts apparently) can easily see that the motivation is nothing more than an orchestrated attack piece.WarHawk 12:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of Smart's noteability. He's not well known by gamers because of his games. Most game developers, especially those whose games have been rather unesuccessful, are not well known. Smart is well known because of his personality and vehement and over-the-top defense of his games and all of the related drama. For many years he seemed to possess an almost magical ability to pop up in any online discussion in which he was mentioned, particularly on Usenet (I saw it happen "in real time" several times - it was really quite amazing and uncanny).

Hey Kerr, GameSpy daily is one of several magazines with lead ins about Smart and who disagree with you. Read this. Let me quote it for you.

"Derek Smart isn't famous. It'd be more accurate to call him infamous. He's also misunderstood. Few game developers are as controversial, headstrong, passionate, arrogant, brilliant, ambitious, and tenacious as he has proven to be. He's best known for the Battlecruiser 3000AD game series, the most ambitious space simulation ever conceived and produced by one person. He then had to watch it crash and burn when Take 2 released it prematurely. Rather than sulk, quit, or just move on to something different, Derek continued working on the game. Doing so won him some devoted fans. Unfortunately, along the way his outspokenness earned some devoted enemies."

Then there is that now famous 2001 Computer Gaming World interview for which they flew a snr editor (Jeff Green who later became the EIC) all the way from California to Florida to meet with Smart, interview him, spend the day with him etc. It is a scanned interview and I dont have time to type up the words they used to describe him but I am sure that you have read it by now as has the rest of the gaming industry. What Ph.D. controversy?

WarHawk 00:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The words the EIC of that publication used to describe Smart on the last page of that article were:

"I'm on the plane heading back to California, and I'm thinking about everything I've heard. I take out a sheet of paper and start making out a list of adjectives. Smart. Witty. Stubborn. Angry. Tenacious. Loyal. Thoughtful. Obssessive. Proud."

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It is OK to disagree, but that does not change the facts as they stand. To say that he's not well known by gamers is just as silly as saying that he's a politician. You folks can't be serious about this stuff. But thats whats wrong with Wiki. Very quickly it becomes an opinionated free-for-all soapbox. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages are intended for discussion of articles. Exactly what is wrong with that? --ElKevbo 19:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the discussion of articles. Do you see how many of us here actually discussing the article? Kerr for one does not seem to have any interest in the article nor its npov nature and requirement. WarHawk 00:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"To say that he's not well known by gamers is just as silly as saying that he's a politician." - That's not what was said. Perhaps some emphasis will help. "He's not well known by gamers because of his games." ElKevbo is making the point (with which I agree and I gather many others do as well) that DS is known best not for his games, but for his behavior. Of course, this is all opinion, but I'd wager money that most people have heard of him because of his antics, not his games. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You are still wrong. I am quite certain that the sales numbers of his games vastly outnumber the gamers who have heard of him by reputation alone instead of his games. A quick look at NPD (to which I have access) easily proves this. For e.g. the petition that was put up to prevent him from buying the Freespace license was signed by a grand total of 93 people. LOL! And thats just one example. When it comes to the Net is is widely known that the vocal minority make the most noise. This is the sort of response Huffman gets when he stalks Smart to forums he frequents. Not everyone cares. Not everyone believes any of the nonsense you people spout. We the sensible ones who can make up our minds and draw our own conclusions dont just lap up anything a bunch of trolls and detractors post. I strongly believe that Smart has more supporters (gamers and industry people alike) than detractors. He is after all still in business all these years and seems to be doing just fine regardless of what is said about him. WarHawk 00:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not we can cite reliable sources to warrant including this is, of course, an entirely different issue. I wouldn't be too surprised if we could not do so and remain in compliance with WP:LIVING. I think it can be done but must be done carefully. And I'm not sure that zealots from either side of the issue have been helpful in trying to document this phenomenon in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --ElKevbo 13:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't cite it. Rules are rules. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not the final arbitor of rules. Wikipedia is a collective process and you do not own this article. If the correct material were to be found it could be placed in the article and cited despite your objections. --ElKevbo 19:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I never said that I was the final arbiter nor that I own the article. My pov was related to the neverending edits, reverts and the general stuff that has been going on. That is what I was refering to. WarHawk 00:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems you were speaking to SC not me. Sorry about that. This whole discussion has turned into one huge soapbox and a convoluted mess to follow. WarHawk 00:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I fail to see the purpose of several of the external links. If they are quite specific but not actually used as references, then they should be removed. I think that there should be only about three external links, namely his own website and a couple of other more general ones. Metamagician3000 11:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears as if some people were just looking for negative links and just adding them. To counter that, other more notable links were then added. WarHawk 12:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Metamagician3000, what is hapenning is that Smart has been a notorius figure, his inflammatory postings have made him have many detractors, if you visit the werewolvee site you can see evidence that he has falsely claimed a Ph.D, he even claimed to be a mensa member, etc. All those posts can be verified as genuine by a archive of USENETlike google groups if needed. The werewolves site is basically a collection and analysis of Smart's USENET postings. Smart has never denied making those postings. The other noteworthy fact is that If the werewolves site contained false defamotory information then all Smart would have to do is to sue Huffman or block the site and we all know that Smart is not hesistatnt when taking legal action. The fact that he has not done so, lends credebility to the werewolves site.

Smart has taken legal action against Huffman several times. Since you were on the Usenet you should know that by now since everyone else does. He even succeeded in getting several of his ISPs take his site offline for libel. He has clearly indicated in several postings that because he is in Florida and Huffman is in California that it would be cost prohibitive and too long drawn out for him to go after him with a court order preventing him from putting up another libelous site elsewhere. So he just chose to ignore him instead. There is nothing stopping Smart from taking legal action if and when he feels like. Your assertion that just because he hasnt done so lends credence to the site is the same thing that you and your buddies used to post on Usenet. It is just nonsense and not based on reality. WarHawk 00:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing in the above paragraph that is true is that Mr. Smart is in Florida and I'm in California. Mr. Smart had his lawyer contact me regarding my accusation that Mr. Smart was an academic fraud and all that his lawyer accomplished was providing me further evidence that Mr. Smart's Ph.D. was not accredited. Here's copies of all the emails I exchanged with Mr. Smart's lawyer that proves this. http://www.werewolves.org/~follies/archives/1History/3PhrauD/1Bash/ Mr. Smart has never taken any other action against me that could even possibly be considered legal action. He did not ever get any of my sites taken down due to libel. I left up an even older Flame War Follies site to just try to slow down Mr. Smart from spreading this false information. http://home.san.rr.com/follies/ Bill Huffman 10:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, like your now perma blocked buddy Lordkazan you are back with your inflammatory remarks which not only violate WP:CIVIL and Wiki Libel policy but have no basis in facts nor reality. It is already quite clear why you are here. Wiki does not care about what people think or say. It cares about what is factual, is evidentiary and is from a WP:RS source. Your opinions, like mine, are irrelevant as far as Wiki is concerned. Wiki is not a court of law. And it is for this same reason that there are stringent guidelines as what constitutes an appropriate edit. End of storySupreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not banned, i'm busy getting ready for my wedding. Your post is a violation of WP:NPA by implying that I broke the rules severely enough for a perma ban. Next time check the block log before opening your mouth Lordkazan 14:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I am only going by what is on your talk page. So, if you think I violated WP:NPA by pointing to that link, go have a good cry about it. Its not the first time you and your buddy Kerr are throwing around silly accusations in an attempt to intimidate editors. Hence the RFc against you. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Smart single handedly was resposible for the longest running flame war, a google groups search for "derek Smart" [23], gives 56,700 results. Yes that is correct fifty thousand results. That shows how much flaming the man has been invloved.

Single-handedly huh? Thats rich. But coming from you, that is no surprise. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is important to put understant my statement in context, for example a google groups search about the infinitely more promimnent and innovative developer John Carmack who has designed industrial classics which we have all played at some time or another (Wolfenstein 3d Doom, Quake), has only 18,700 hits on the usenet [24].

But Derek Smart who's games have never been accepted by the mainstream, which have not received critically acclaim, has 3 times more hits to make a collosal > 56,000 posts regarding him. It Smart's controversial and inflammtory nature which has given him such prominence in the gaming world. Which is why it was my view that the werewolves site which is extensively referenced should be allowed to be used as external link, as it is the singlemost important site discribing the infamous flame wars.Kerr avon 21:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Apples to Oranges. WarHawk 00:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason for inclusion of the werewolves link as a WP:EL is that as cited above it has been extensively cross referenced with regard to derek smart, other biographies of more noteworthy and controversial people like Jerry Falwell, have external links infinitely more critical of them (one which is a direct link to a pro gay site, and another which questions that he has received money illegally etc) than a collection and analysis of USENET postings. So why should'nt the werewolves link be included, if other more serious sites are permitted in other biographies?

You are wrong as usual. I'm not sure how many times you're going to say the same thing over and over. That link will never ever be allowed. This is something you're going to have to live with dude. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"That link will never ever be allowed." - What does this mean? By whom? You? See WP:OWN. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think what SC means is that because there is no consensus on it, that it will never be allowed by those who agree and those who disagree. At least that what I think he means. WarHawk 00:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The other reason is that the SPA's Supreme_Cmdr (who has been under suspicious for being Smart himself), and the appropriately named Warhawk have been expunging anything critical of Smart and adding grandiose edits and contributing to edit wars. The fact that they are SPA's questions there NPOV. For any unbiased researcher on Smart it is quite apparent that any bio of his should include a mention of why the man achieved prominence. It was not due to his games which have all been criticaly lambasted but for his inflammtory aggresive and controverisal personality. So therefore a bio of Smart should include negative views and references to the man accordingly.Kerr avon 13:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Until last week, being a new editor, you didn't even know how to edit, let alone know what an WP:SPA was. With your talk page littered with warnings, it is quite clear that your purpose here is the same as your SPA. Those inconsequential edits you made on Wiki don't even serve to make your account a non-SPA one. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I have been editing for nearly two months, and yet I am satisifed that I have made sufficiently diverse contributions [25] that in no way can I be called a SPA. Please do not make unsubstantiated allegations, my talk page isn't littered with warnings. I count only three, which cannot be mentioned as "littered with warnings", on the contrary your page [26] can be certainly mentioned as littered with warnings. In Sinhalese we have a statement similar to "People in glass houses should not throw stones"! for the above highlighted ironic fact!Kerr avon 21:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Metamagician. And if the controversy is so noteable then surely we'll be able to find other sources even if the one in question is not acceptable to some editors. --ElKevbo 19:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats the thing. You wont find it _ANYWHERE_ but on Usenet or stalker Bill Huffmans site on werewolves.org. There is a reason for that. Guess what that reason might be. WarHawk 00:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason is that it is only a controversy brought about by a bunch of detractors, trolls and net stalkers and nobody in the media let alone the gaming industry doubts his achievements nor his qualifications enough to make a big deal out of either. Yes, the answer is pretty obvious, but not to those folks, who, like Kerr, are only after one thing: The continued character assassination and attack of one of the most notorious game developers in the history of the industry.Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 11:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

False statements as usual. I have highlighted several reliable sources (see above) which cross reference the werewolves site which give it its high page ranking.Kerr avon 11:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Reversion at 14:33 on October 20, 2006

I reverted Supreme_Cmdr's edits:

1. As Kerr avon noted, it's redundant to state that it was in Beta. It was unfinished. The statment also doesn't appear to supported by any sources but I may be mistaken as I once I saw that it was redundant I stopped looking.

2. The "non scientific" statement regarding GameRankings.com is unecessary. I don't feel very strongly about this as it's a relatively accurate statement so if someone wants to put it back I'd be fine with the edit. It does feel a bit POV and ORish to me but I understand the concern.

3. The link to Slashdot was perfectly appropriate and meets all relevant Wikipedia criteria. Slashdot is a very prominent website with a very significant number of visitors. More to the point, the statement was merely "Slashdot talked about this" with a subsequent citation supporting the statement. As always, asserted facts must be supported by appropriate citations. The only fact asserted here was that Slashdot featured the controversy and the citation provided supported that assertion. It's pretty clear-cut and I see no ground for removal on the basis of WP:LIVING or WP:RS. --ElKevbo 19:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

1) I suppose so. And yes, there are several sources which list the fact that the game was still in Beta when it was released. That was the whole reason that Smart tried (and failed) to obtain an injunction against its release.

2) The point is that some people were linking to that ranking in order to point out that the game was bad or something. That of course is untrue. So that 'non scientific' wording was added in order to alleviate that argument about the authenticity of a largely arbitrary scoring system.

3) IMO Slashdot is not a WP:RS because it illicits user commentary which do not reflect the opinions of the article it [/.] cites. In which case, its function is no different from a forum or Usenet posting in which there is a subject, followed by user commentary. Until there is a consensus about this, I am removing it since it wasn't there to begin with.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 16:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Your position that /. is not a reliable source about what /. has featured on its site is completely ridiculous and unsupportable. --ElKevbo 17:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo. Nandesuka 18:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason /. articles should be considered reliable sources (as opposed to the ensuing user commentary) is that their submission must go through a moderation process. Presumably, the linked article(s) from the /. article have been verified by the submitter and the article approver. In this case, the original article ref'd from the /. article is not available, so it is not possible to link directly to that; the /. article is the next best thing. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You are both incorrect. You are confusing /. with its counter part ./ games. The later - as far as I know - does not go through the same process as the former. Hence the reason it should be regarded as just a blog, forum or Usenet based site which, wait for it, makes it fail WP:RS. Whether the article is controversial or not is irrelevant. I'm just going by the rules. So, what'd I miss exactly? Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 21:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

They must be accepted by editors. Specifically, read the top part about "Here is where you can submit a story for the Slashdot Editors to peer at it, poke it with a stick, and perhaps post it for all to share and enjoy." - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you're going down the wrong path with respect to the "editorial practices" of /.. Their practices are extremely weak at best and have garnered significant criticism from the /. community for their non-existent professional standards, misspellings, poor grammar, inappropriate editorializing, etc. There's a very good argument to be made for including this reference but I'm afraid this isn't it. --ElKevbo 03:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The point you're missing is that the /. "article" is not referenced because we are using any of the substantial content in the article but referencing the existence of the article itself. If were trying to include material from one of the comments on /. as substantial evidence in this article I would completely agree with you. But we're simply saying, "He's controversial and as evidence we offer a /. article" which is, of course, prima facie evidence of significant noteability within a particular audience. --ElKevbo 03:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That is still a weak argument. By your suggestion, we might as well ignore WP:RS and WP:EL and just post to any source we feel like and under the guise of referencing the existence of the article itself Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Slashdot is a prominent technological website, it features articles which have been moderated, and the fact that it highlighted the freespace incident is a example of the notoriety Smart is held by the gaming community. As such the slashdot link should be allowed to stand. There is no doubt slashdot is a WP:RS. Supreme_Cmdr is nitpicking as usual because it naturally contains some comments critical of Smart.Kerr avon 11:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's noteable that the source in question actually covered the topic then it's natural and acceptable to cite the source. Again, I don't see why this is even controversial. If you want to assert that we shouldn't even note that /. covered the topic then that's a legitimate debate. But asserting that we can't prove that /. covered the topic is ridiculous. You're also completely confusing WP:RS and WP:EL with WP:CITE. --ElKevbo 02:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with kerr avon and ElKevbo. Although Slashdot isn't scholarly, it is a known trade source. I believe the Slashdot link is a valid one in this article. Also, I was the one who did the dissertation search some time back. Derek Smart claims to possess a Ph.D., which I've had some fun trying to verify using the NSF lists, the UMI and CRISP archives, and the registry of new doctorates. I added back the original comment I made back in 05 back to the article. If it is taken down again, someone ought to post in the talk section why. I also believe that Supreme_Cmdr and Warhawk are the same character, and are not NPOV writers. Lord999 05:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)lord999

Yeah. uh, huh. Whatever. I suppose for the millions of times that it has been posted on Usenet, on forums, in books etc, it just has not sunk in yet that failure to find listings on those services is not proof that a dissertation does not exist. Smart (and several others in the Ph.D. field) have stated that his work is suppressed (quite valid) due to the proprietary nature of his work as used in his games. Its called Trade Secrets. Since you obviously were on Usenet and part of the flamewar over nothing, you surely know that several other Ph.D. holders were there (in various threads and at various times) saying the same darn thing and challenging people to find their listings. Most failed.

This crap is so old that you and your buddies here seemed to have missed the memo:

Nobody cares. And unless there is absolute proof of its existence or lack-of, it has no place in this Wiki

WarHawk 19:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ref changes

I'm trying to make the references consistent, and I'm wondering whether people prefer a style that lengthens the edit window but makes the text around it more readable, or compacting it in one or two lines. I tried this change in this diff to see how it looks, just to see what other people think. I'm thinking that in general, this makes things more easier, (compared to examples in this, but since this article doesn't really have a consistent usage of references yet, we might as well decide on one. Cowman109^Talk 01:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good either way, but I think I prefer the first version. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 16:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care as long as it's consistent. And having done similar "grunt work" on another article, I really appreciate what you're doing here! Thanks! --ElKevbo 03:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Something Awful's satire

In this diff I toned down the reference to Something Awful's satire of Derek Smart's online controversies in the interest of maintaining a WP:NPOV and trying to be more in line with WP:LIVING. It really isn't necessary to give direct quotes from something that was clearly a satire/attack on Derek Smart, though the existence of the satire itself may be relevant to the notability of the online controversy. Remember that we're not here to disparage or promote the subject of this article, but to provide neutral, verifiable information. Cowman109^Talk 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite right. I removed that before, but they added it back in. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 21:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, good move and good advice. Metamagician3000 03:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed it. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 11:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest the SA reference be removed altogether. I don't find how it adds useful information to the controversy section. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind it being included and the current version does a good job of including it without giving it undue weight. I think a few examples of how Smart is commonly portrayed by gamers and others is relevant and gives necessary color and depth to the article. The review is clearly a humorous piece and thus I see no danger of liable which is one of the primary lynch pins of WP:LIVING. --ElKevbo 03:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats funny. Especially when you consider that the article title itself claims to be libelous and the content clearly demonstrates such. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 11:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the link. Satire isn't libel, and the fact that Smart was the subject of satire by a notable publication is both significant in itself, and useful to demonstrate the extent to which his behavior was recognized by the media. Nandesuka 13:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Their satire has absolutely nothing to do with Smart's online controversy. And to say that SA is media is as laughable as it is ignorant. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I was pondering whether to propose removing the link completely, as well. The contents of the SA reference consist of nothing but negative claims that are not backed by any reliable sources (and it's a satire, obviously). While the online controversies of Derek Smart may be notable, there is already a reference to the Slashdot article that expands upon this a bit. A link to a pure attack article seems to be no more acceptable than having an attack article in Wikipedia. Please remember WP:BLP and that such links should be avoided. Cowman109^Talk 14:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Issue here is that Smart's online antics are notable as it is what has made him (in)famous. Something awful's staire should be included for several reasons. The foremorest reason is that it is a verifiable and reliable source of Derek's famous legal threats which he is famous for. He threatened Lowtax with a lawsuit and got a hilarious reply. The fact that Smart who is supposed to have attorneys literaaly on speed dial (vide freespace controversy )did not proceed with legal action shows that it is not libellous or even potentially libellous. Supreme_Cmdr is hell bent on expunging anything critical of Smart and putting excesses about him in this wiki.Kerr avon 09:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again you prove without a doubt that you have no clue what you're talking about and are just here to libel and attack Smart. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 11:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cowman109, I've thought long and hard about this, and I simply disagree. This is a third party opinion by a fairly significant source. Eliminating it completely, it seems to me, violates NPOV, although I have not objected to not quoting it for BLP reasons. Can we get some other neutral editors to look at this link and make the call? An article RFC on this specific issue might help. Nandesuka 12:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Since when was the SA site considered to be fairly significant? By the lowest of standards, it doesn't even pass the WP:RS test. Also, for the purposes of WP:BLP is cannot be allowed to stand. It is a satirical parody and bears no relevance to the article at all. Go ahead, open the RFc and see what happens. And while you're at it, here go ahead and read this excerpt from WP:BLP. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether or not satires are allowed in WP:BLP. From what I have just read they clearly are not due to the strict guidelines that are required. I am with Cowman109 on this. WarHawk 12:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Something Awfull is a noted enough site to have even a wikipedia article regarding it. This is a RS, and the reason for including the satire is that it is a RS which can be quoted to show Smart threatening lowtax with legal action [27]. Are SC and warhawk implying that the letter from Smart was forged? Smartr is notorious for threatening to sue virtually anyone under the sun and here we have a prime documented example of it. Thus SA should be used to substantiate claims that Smart is noted for threatening legal action against people.Kerr avon 13:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I think you've gone too far. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You have GOT to be kidding. Since when was SA a WP:RS. *sheesh* WarHawk 13:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It depends on context. You can't really expect to lay down inflexible, iron-clad rules about when a particular resource is acceptable and expect them to work in all situations. The "check-list" approach to information literacy has been pretty roundly and fairly criticized and abandoned by many information literacy educators as its inflexibility renders it useless in many circumstances and fails to teach the critical thinking skills necessary to make an informed decision in all cases. --ElKevbo 02:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly why WP:BLP exists.WarHawk 16:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. WP:BLP exists as a means of protecting Wikipedia from claims of libel. Either you're terribly confused about this or intentionally twisting this policy into something that it's not. WP:BLP requires that we have significant evidence when making strong negative claims of or assertions about living persons. We do have evidence and our claim ("he's acted like a jerk in the past") isn't very strong and it's definitely not libelous. I really feel like you're trying to use WP:BLP to ensure that no negative information is in this article and that's just not what that policy or Wikipedia is all about. --ElKevbo 16:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am going to remove the SA link reference at least temporarily until some sort of consensus can be settled on this. I will try to seek third opinions regarding the matter. Please do not re-add the link per WP:BLP concerns. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 19:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Your intervention is greatly appreciated. As to warhawk's allegation that SA is not a RS. I would refer Warhawk to the excellent Something Awful article in wikipedia which claims "Historically, it has been a force in the promotion and creation of various Internet phenomena.". SA is a prominent site and can be taken as a RS.Kerr avon 22:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it cannot. Something Awful does not fufill the criteria for a WP:RS in the least. JBKramer 13:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Any luck on soliciting third-party opinions? --ElKevbo 02:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. You conveniently left out the bulk of the SA intro. I quote:

'Something Awful, sometimes abbreviated to SA, is a comedy website based in Lee's Summit, Missouri, United States. It houses a variety of content, such as instant messaging pranks, digitally edited pictures, and humorous negative reviews of various forms of media. In addition, it has a very active set of forums, which in recent years have grown remarkably. Historically, it has been a force in the promotion and creation of various Internet phenomena.'

Oh, and then there is this, and I quote:

In its earlier days, Something Awful targeted much of its humor at the world of computer gaming, poking fun at industry personalities like John Romero[12] and Derek Smart[13]. Though the focus of the site's content has since changed to reflect an expanding reader base, gaming continues to be a popular activity in the community. There is a goon presence in many MMORPGs. In these games, community members have created goon-only guilds or alliances. Goons tend to have a very abrasive, ironic sense of humor, which many other players often find offensive.

WarHawk 14:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Image isn't fair use

See WP:FAIR - 'An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like.' is specifically listed as not being acceptable fair use. Ehheh 12:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you folks keep removing this image? I have done extensive research on the requirements and read every single Wiki guideline on it. But what does Ehheh go and do? He goes and removes it again. This is just ridiculous. Would it kill you to read the guidelines before making these wanton edits? Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly wrong I think. See Jack ThompsonSupreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for finding another image for me to remove. JBKramer 12:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I just read WP:FAIR and it is a wonder that any images are allowed on Wiki at all. From my pov I do not think that having that image is worth the hassle it seems to be generating. Anyone who wants to see what Smart looks like, can go to his website or the myriad of other sites that have his image. WarHawk 13:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. Not worth the hassle really. I thought I had read and understood everything. Hence the reason I went back and edited the tags. Oh well. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Arent you slipping up a bit Supreme_Cmdr? It was Warhawk who went back and edited the tags [28] not yourself (Supreme_Cmdr). This certainly is very suspicious and makes me think that Warhawk is a sockpuppet of you. You could easily be going through a proxy to change the IP from yours. Warhawk only appeared on the scene when you were banned initially. You both use uncommon terms like "personal soap box". I have nothing against you personally but what Warhawk and yourself are doing is causing unwanted reverts and preventing a consensus being established.Kerr avon 13:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please STOP. Noboby died and put you in charge. I was the one who uploaded the image. I was the one who sent email to biz@3000ad.com for its use. I was the one who went back and edited the image Fair Use tags after JBKramer flagged the image for deletion. It still was not acceptable. The tags that Warhawk is talking about are the bio tags in the article, not the image. You really DO need to stop this shit. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, clearly a productive thing for us to do now is to play internet sockpuppet slapfest. Focus on the content, not the contributor. JBKramer 13:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My only reason for highlighting this is that wikipedia frowns on sockpupetry except in certain allowable circumstances. I think that there are sufficient similarities (vide above) to suspect supreme_cmdr and warhawk to be sockpuppets. Do you agree that sockpuppetry is permitted in that case?Kerr avon 13:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care. Both you, your supports and he, and his supporters contribute nothing of value to the encyclopedia. If I ran the place, you would all be gone. JBKramer 13:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The tags on the image page. I don't see any evidence of sockpuppetry. -Ehheh 14:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made a error due to misinterpretation. No offense meant.Kerr avon 22:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Werewolves sublink

Since discussion on the issue seems to have stagnated, I've tried something slightly different - I've used a deeper link to the Usenet posts. This page lacks mention or link to things like the NPD accusations, which I think we're better off without. Ehheh 14:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't stagnated. As was pointed out earlier, it never was in the article to begin with. So the consensus for its state is the default state of: unacceptable in WP:BLP editsSupreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That page is far more innapropriate - it is a link to a page which basically has archived posts of someguysposts about Derek Smart. JBKramer 14:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And, apparently, as I have fought the inclusion of unfree images, removed blatently innapropriate links to not-reliable sources, and fought against misleading edit summaries, I have breached 3rr. I really hope that all of the edit warriors on this article would go away and let me and Nandesuka deal with it without your interferance. JBKramer 14:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the archive has a bunch of Derek's stuff in it as well. Would [this (mostly Derek) be any better, do you think? Ehheh 14:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no 100 times no. werewolves.org is not a reliable source, and cannot be trusted. Deep linking to it gives the impression that we support the assertions of fact presented in the deep link - that they have an accurate archive of smart posts. Beyond that, anyone who has the most basic knowledge of usenet can forge anything. JBKramer 14:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. And Smart and others have publicly stated that most of those posts which Huffman cut from Usenet and pasted in .txt files are forged and/or edited. Even the image of Smart on his opening page is a modification of an image that clearly fails Fair Use; even when he is attempting to pass off the site as humor (see the tag at the end of the front page) in order to circumvent Fair Use requirements. WarHawk 14:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Smart can state anything, that is his right however the htings he state cannot be taken seriously without discussion by other reasonable people as Smart is noted to being a controversial individual to put it mildly. But neither he, nor you have have shown a single forged usenet posting on that site despite being kindly requested to do so. All you and SC can do is to evade the issue. I challenge you to show a forged USENET posting on that site which can be cross verified by google groups, if that is the case I will not contest the exclusion of the werewolves as it would be proved to be not reliable. So i once again kindly request you to provide evidence to substantiate your wild allegations instead of evading the issue. Just oone single usenet posting from that site, surely that cant be that hard if what you say is true, as it contains links to many thousands of Smart's flames.Kerr avon 22:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ehheh and his friends are clearly aware of this but they will continue to push that link into the article in the say way they had it surreptitiously added to the article when this Wiki wasn't such a hot topic. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents of the posts can be verified with google groups - is the position that someone has been impersonating Smart on Usenet? That seems to contradict what he's said in interviews. Ehheh 14:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about impersonating anyone. The point is that there is no proof that some or all of those documents haven't been tampered with. Especially when you consider the person and his motives for having them to begin with. Common sense please. Oh wait. Nevermind. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 15:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Half truths, distortions by SC usual. You make the allegation that the usenet posts are tampered by Huffman. Therefore it is upto you to prove it. Instead of using twisted logic and saying "no proof that some or all havent been tampered with" What sort of convulated logic is that? I wish to re-instate that the werewolves site contains a collection of usenet postings by Smart, which can be verified as genuine by googel groups, and there currently is no evidence that they have been edited. If SC makes the allegations that huffman has edited them, then it is up to SC to prove it, instead of applying convoluted logic.Smart has never denied these USENET posts. I fail to see why the werewolves site cannot be included as it so far contains genuine usenet postings, which should remain genuine (presumed innocent until proven guilty - right SC?) until proven otherwise, by Smart or SC or others. Since we do not look forward to reacing a consensus this way I suggest we take this matter to arbcomm as we have failed to reach a conclusion.Kerr avon 22:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no tampering of Usenet posts that are archived on the Werewolves website. When Mr. Smart would make this silly claim I would simply offer to take down the whole website if he could prove that just one post was maliciously tampered. So I'm making this same offer again. (Note that Mr. Smart was accussed of tampering emails and posting the tampered copies on Usenet. The tampering must be done by me, of course, not Mr. Smart for this offer to be valid.) In any case I can categorically state that there was no malicious tampering of Usenet posts that are saved/archived on the Werewolves Flame War Follies website. Bill Huffman 00:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. Only an idiot would believe that a notorious Smart stalker like you who is noted for twisting facts, distorting truths and online harrassment would have anything truthful to say, let alone have factual evidence of anything. As long as the documents reside on your website, they are suspect. Bill, you need to get this into your head. Not only doesn't he have to show you anything, nobody gives a darn and this Wiki is not Usenet where you can bring your stalking activities to bear. Looks like you're going to get banned again since you are quite notorious for doing this and getting banned wherever he goes or is discussed. Are you that unhappy with your life that almost ten years later you are still harrassing a man who doesn't even care that you exist?

Bill Huffman, you are neither WP:NPOV nor even close to being WP:RS. You also need to bear in mind that WP:BLP has strict guidelines for editing Wiki pages. You might want to read this as well. Anyway, You have your own page now. Bear in mind that you are not permitted to edit it in much the same way that Smart does not edit his. All we need now is for Smart to show up and we'll have the Usenet equivalent of what you folks turned Usenet into. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Smart, if you can edit your page then why can't I edit mine? Please stop telling that silly story that I ever stalked you. It is a total lie. Why is it okay for you to repeat that silly lie all over the place and never provide any supporting evidence? Heck, it is more reasonable (but still ridiculous) to claim that you were stalking me on Usenet because I was posting on Usenet before you ever did. Bill Huffman 06:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Bill Huffman is notorious? It sounds to me like we should have an article on him, in that case. Why was he notorious? Was it for his opinions of Derek Smart? If that's the case, it's certainly appropriate for us to note the dispute. Please remember that the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Nandesuka 12:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He is notorious online and there is no WP:RS source that acknowledges that. So, no, its can't be in this Wiki. I was thinking along the same lines as you, so I started to edit Huffman's page where it is probably more appropriate. But for some cosmic reason, JBKramer removed it without any explanation (other than a criptic one) whatsoever. So I've just reverted it. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because writing bad faith attack article on other people's user pages is patently unnaceptable. JBKramer 14:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I didn't realize that I was creating the text in his user page instead of in an article. My bad. I'll get around to doing the article this weekend. Apart from that, it wasn't an attack article by any means. I was just trying to give him his own page where he can post as much crap as he wants and where those other morons who perpetrated this nonsense can go once word gets out that he's now editing Smart's page. Before long, Smart himself will show up and then we'll see what happens then. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Smart, I have no intention of editing the Derek Smart article nor even giving my opinion on the contents of said article. (Another obvious Derek lie has been refuted. :-) ) My only purpose here was to try to correct your most grievious lies that seemed to be impacting the discussion. Please stop netstalking me on WP and please try to keep your lies about me to a minimum. Perhaps as a gift to the silliness being displayed here I shall remove reference to NPD from the Werewolves website. :-) Bill Huffman 00:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Usenet posts are not WP:RS. JBKramer 13:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the context. --ElKevbo 02:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Not when it concerns WP:BLP. WarHawk 15:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Context always matters. To say otherwise betrays either an immense ignorance of information literacy and how one judges information to be reliable or a complete indifference to the integrity of this encyclopedia. --ElKevbo 16:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR Traps

It seems as if Ehheh and his friends are basically engaging in 3RR traps. Please read.Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 16:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You are fully responsible for your edits/reverts. If you violate WP:3RR, it's your problem and yours alone. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

SC, please do not try to whitewash yourself and stick to editing the facts. By making allegations against others and trying to over your own 3rr violations which you have got banned several times you are cultivating more detractors and this article will never improve. If you were not so arrogant and uncompromisable we would have achieved a alot by now. This article is doomed to edit warring until you become reasonable or exit just like the flame wars died out when Smart left the usenet.Kerr avon 22:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Enough reversions

I'm not sure if you people understand, but to put this in the lightest possible terms, edit warring is unproductive. If you have to revert more than once, something is going wrong. The world won't end if a certain edit is left alone while it is being discussed, but this article has seen improvement and I don't want to protect it again due to this edit warring. If you are only being careful not to revert more than 3 times, that is not good enough. Edit warring in any form is unproductive, and users can and will be blocked for edit warring. Concerning the game rankings, can we please have a calm, structured discussion concerning how the links should be (or not be) included? And please, focus on the content, not on the contributors. I honestly don't care if you think a certain editor is a representative of a PR firm in Nebraska who is being paid to put Derek Smart in a positive light, accusing other editors of acting in bad faith is in itself assuming bad faith, so Wikipedia:No personal attacks strongly applies to the discussions in this page as well. Now that this is aside, can we please discuss the issues of content that are upsetting people, and perhaps come up with reasonings or a compromise concerning them? Cowman109^Talk 19:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I consider your threat to protect an article on which you are currently working a conflict of interest. --ElKevbo 19:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the game aggregate sites, we were refreing to Gamerankings and Metacritic, initially we metioned that "Smarts game received average to mediocre rating" etc, subsequant to discussion with other users it was agreed to avoid our judgement with regard to average etc, and provide a neutral statement. When I made a neutral edit [29] saying that Smarts games "recived 58% at gamerankings" etc which was perfectly neutral Supreme_Cmdr reverted it [30] with false claims. He mentioned "It was already decided that the non-scientific aggregate scores (added back in by Kerr) were unacceptable, not npov and bear no relevance to the article" which was wrong. What we agreed was to be neutral and avoid using terms like average mediocre etc.

Subsequantly although my previous edit was NPOV, i removed even the scores with a view of compromising and just mentioned that gamerankings and metacritic have given aggregate scores [31]. Even this perfectly neutral edit was reverted by Warhawk unjustifiably.

I propose that the currently worded form ie "Gamerankings and Metacritic have given aggregate scores" followed by a link to the sites, is perfectly neutral and should be kept in its current form.

You are wrong. This article is covered by WP:BLP and is about Derek Smart. It is a bio; so the rules which apply are held to a much higher standard. Whether his games were good, bad or ugly is irrelevant and aggregate scores are meaningless in this article WarHawk 15:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is that we were linking to aggregate sites, hence the linking text should mention that we are linking to aggregate sites. It was a perfectly justified and neutral edit which in no way is against WP:BLP, but you were needlessly reverting it for most probably purely personal reasons as if you will not let any edit by me stand.

Regarding Smart's games, of course the fact that his games are good or bad is indeed relevant to his (or for that matter any game designers) biography, as we have to explain how a game designer who has never produced a game with mass appeal came to achieve such notoriety and popularity that there are more than 59,000 USENET postings discussing about him [32], where as infinitely more notable figures like the legendary John Carmack who has produced widely discussed games like Doomquake etc has only 14,000 posts [33].

For example a good analogue for Smart would be the maverick movie director Ed_Wood_Jr who is considered one of the worst directors of all time and who directed the (in)famous plan 9 from outer space. In his bio it is mentioned that "Wood is commonly regarded as one of the worst filmmakers of all time", "Wood's other vices included soft drugs, alcohol and sex. While he respected women and was completely faithful to his girlfriends (most notably Dolores Fuller) and wife Kathy O'Hara, Ed was a notorious womanizer in his younger days.". As you can see commentrary critical is allowed within the WP:BLP.

The importance of highlighting the fact that Smart has never produced a critically acclaimed game is to explain that the man's popularity (or notoriety) lies for the majority in his ability in engaging in flame wars and other controversial discussions (vide freespace controversy).Kerr avon 19:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You keep on quoting about WP:BLP, so I would be gratefull by what clause you define that mentioning that Smart's games were not popular would controvene the BLP if properly sourced.Kerr avon 19:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong on so very many levels that I dont even know where to start, nor am I going to waste my time with circular arguments. For one thing, everything written about Ed Wood can be cited if one looks hard enough. Secondly, whether Derek Smart released a critically acclaimed game or not is largely and wholly irrelevant. Why? Because it is subjective and a matter of opinion. Your inference that he has a high number of Usenet posts is akin to saying that because Rush Limbaugh is a controversial radio personality, so he is better known for that than for his contributions to political debate. Then theres Howard Stern, George Bush, Bill Clinton etc

You truly cannot be serious about this stuff that you are drumming up. It is quite apparent and clear that you are simply fishing and have literally no meaningful information to contribute to this Wiki. You are more focused on injecting negative commentary than you are in an npov contribution that is worthy of the WP:BLP protected Wiki.

WarHawk 15:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it not relevant if Derek Smart has made good games or not. Everything is subjective, movie reviews for example are subjective, however what has been consitent is that critics know a good movie or a good game from a bad one. The fact that Smart's games have all been critically panned is indeed noteworthy. Just like Ed Wood who is noted for making bad movies, Smart is noted for his average games and his bad mouth. Both facts which would be justified in inclusion of the mans biography. Most of what is written about Smart can indeed be cited from numourous online sources like gamespy, slashdot etc, however the problem is that you and Supreme_Cmdr are bent on erasing anything constructively critical of him which is cited.

Please do not talk about NPOV, as the fact that you are a SPA lends serious doubts to your credibility of being a NPOV editor.Kerr avon 16:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If I might add my two cents - I don't particularly have an opinion either way for the inclusion of these, but if anything there should not be two copies of the exact same information. There should be only one such. Is there a Wikipedia page for the game in question? If there is, that page could hold the information concerning the game's ranking as a compromise. Cowman109^Talk 22:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There certainly is a wikipedia page for the game Universal Combat, however as you can see by this edit by non other than Supreme_Cmdr [34], he is removing the said information transferred verbatim at that time from the Derek Smart page, which would lead to edit wars. I suggest that rather than moving the information to another page which will only cause a revert war on that page, the information be left on this page itself.Kerr avon 16:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

DreamCatcher

The statement "The game was not ready in time for the 2003 holidays and was shipped in early 2004 at half of the originally announced price by Dreamcatcher. a company with a habit of doing just that. " is not true. Dungeon Lords was not shipped at half of the originally announced price.144.189.5.201 20:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That was just misplaced wording which I have now corrected. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, because it feels like original research. What's the point of mentioning that Dreamcatcher shipped one other game that wasn't ready? If it's to support the idea that Dreamcatcher does this habitually, it seems to me that this is original research. Find a third party who describes Dreamcatcher that way. Nandesuka 12:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The game was not unfinished, if we go by Smart's blog [35], we see he says that on 01.16.2004 he says "Dreamcatcher have today signed off on the latest build of the game and a Gold Master as v1.00.01 has been sent off to them for replication". If a game is > version 1.0 then it is a ,ature and stable game(of course none of Smart's games can be classified as stable regardless of their version number but thats a different point), or else he should have got his version numbers right. The real issue here is not the supposedly premature release, but Smart sued mainly as he felt that the budget price will be financially harmfull to his company. Since the main reason for the legal case was due to financial reprecussions, mentioning Dreamcatcher as a repeated releaser of premature games is libellous and not NPOV. Actually the real reason was that the 2003 delay by Smart cost dreamcatcher a lot and in the end they were fed up with the guy and decided to release it and make whatever money is possible.Kerr avon 23:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I see you haven't let up from your usual posting of pure nonsense and fabrication. The legal fiasco started for Christmas 2003 which is when they had wanted to originally release the game. Smart refused because it wasn't finished. By early 2004, it still needed some polish, but on 12-17-03 Smart posed a question to his install base as to how far he'd want to go before releasing the game. Eventually he released it. Shortly after it became clear that DC wanted to reduce the price of the game because it was no longer shipping at Christmas, thats when he filed a legal injunction. By that time the game had already shipped and the injunction was fruitless because that ship had already sailed. Had the judge granted the injunction, the copies of the game would have been recalled, posing economic harm to DC. Because of that, the judge then denied the injunction in a manner that still allowed Smart and his legal team to continue forward with their lawsuit (its all in the legal documents posted in the article). Smart did just that and it was later settled out of court.

Smart is the developer of his games and the owner of his IP. As such, he clearly gets to determine when his game is finished and when it is not. DC is not the first nor the last publisher to ship games incomplete in order to make a Christmas ship date. DC have done it repeatedly. They did it with Gore, UC, Dungeon Lords and other titles. The media knows that quite well and clearly mention it in reviews. Libelous? Yeah right. You clearly have not even bothered to go to the DC forums, the forums of other developers (e.g. Dungeon Lords) who gave their games to DC or you wouldn't be posting your usual crap. But you know it all to be crap and its just your way of attacking Smart even further, regardless of how laughable and how much of a joke you have become around here.

Anyone who didn't have a negative agenda such as yourself, could easily follow the UC chain of events clearly stated in his news entries (which you incorrectly call a blog), the media fiasco that ensued and the forum postings themselves which catalog the events and from which even the media referenced for their reporting.

Any game that misses Christmas, stands to lose money. It is a factor of the industry. Publishers tend to push games into that period for that reason. So DC missing Christmas and losing money, is no different from any other publisher or developer (Smart) losing money. Don't you think developers want to make money too? And what money did DC lose? Did they post any proof of that? As Smart pointed out, they didn't do any marketing for the game, they didn't do end caps etc. So what money did they lose? The only time a publisher loses money is when they don't get back what they put in. In the case of DC & 3000AD, all they lost were profits from Christmas sales which they missed. According to my PC Data figures, the game has thus far sold more than 100K units since DC released it in early 2004.

In this industry, publishers who consistently do the wrong thing, screw developers etc, go out of business. This has happened to DC obviously now that a lowely Austrian (!) company has bought them out, gutted it and made them a subsidiary. As with all such buyouts, Dreamcatcher is going to be but a memory within the year. Smart and his company are still in business and AFAIK still churning out games that a lot of people still buy. So, as the article said, go ahead, hate him. I'm sure that he gives a damn what you think.

WarHawk 17:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Arguing with Kerr is a lesson in futility which is why I gave up on that a while back. If you seriously think that he is not aware of everything you posted, then you give him far too much credit for ignorance. He's not ignorant. He has an agenda and anything that shines Smart or his company in a bad light is what he's after. Which is why, to date, NONE of his edits have been allowed to stand. And they never will because there is nothing npov about them.Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it again. It doesn't have anything to do with this article. Put it in DreamCatcher instead of using it here to whitewash. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If the cited source actually supported the statement then I might be inclined to lobby for the inclusion of this statement. But the cited source does nothing of the sort. I can understand making the mistake once. But continuing to cite a source that provides no support for the alleged fact goes beyond a mere mistake and gets at questions of credibility and honesty. Find another source that supports the assertion or drop it. --ElKevbo 17:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, I've put it back because obviously neither one of you either read the article or plain English eludes you. Here is the OPENING tagline of the article again If we gave grades, it'd be "Incomplete" and if you actually read my paragraph change, it should be obvious why I included it. The company is notorious for releasing UNFINISHED games. Their attempt at doing the same with Smart's game wasn't the first nor the last (since Dungeon Lords was released after UC, late last year) time they did just that. Now they are, for all intent and purposes, out of business. Which is exactly what Warhawk was saying above in his response to the nonsense posted by Kerr. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The very last sentence in the review you attempt to cite states that "In the end, it turns out Dungeon Lords wasn't so much released before its time, as it was given up on in an admission that time had already long since passed it by..." Further, even if these two games were both released early (a fact you clearly have not established) that does not render their publisher "notorious" for releassing games early. Such an assertion without a reference clearly stating as such is original research. --ElKevbo 12:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, be WP:CIVIL. Second, you should have read MY note in that it doesn't HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS ARTICLE. DreamCatcher may or may not be "notorious for releasing UNFINISHED games", but it doesn't matter in the context of this article. You put it in there as a tenuous attempt to whitewash. If you feel so strongly about this point, put it in DC's article, not here. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I read your not. Like all your other notes and useless edits, it was patently irrelevant. The cited source and included line support the notion that Dreamcatcher releases unfinished products. Why is this relevant? Because of the context of the paragraph in which UC being released incomplete was mentioned. The notion is that Smart wasn't late in delivering the game because there was no requirement, no announcement, no PR that the game was supposed to ship at that time. Smart's own news items and website discussions cited by Warhawk above, lay it all out quite clearly. The UC game wasn't finished. Yet the publisher wanted to release it incomplete in order to meet a Christmas deadline. The same thing they later did with Dungeon Lords and several of their other games. Something that is proliferated in the video game business because of the increased sales during that shopping season. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 11:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should post that on your blog, or on some encyclopedia that permits and encourages original research. This encyclopdia forbids it. Please stop trying to promulgate your own novel theories here. Nandesuka 13:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This article listed in "Lamest edit wars"

In case you weren't aware of it, this article has been listed on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Cla68 07:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Major agreement here. Edit wars are stupid and those who participate are even dumber. Piercetp 23:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Well YOU'RE STUPID!!! Nyah! :) --ElKevbo 23:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)