Talk:Derek Smart

Untitled

Notice of Arbitration Committee Decision

This article was the subject of a recent Arbitration Committee case and decision. The complete text of the decision can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart.

The Arbitration Committee imposed the following remedies:

• Limitation on reverts by single-purpose accounts: For a period of six months, ending September 2, 2007, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. Any single-purpose account which performs such a revert may be kindly informed of this restriction and given the opportunity either to lay out their concerns on the article's discussion page or to e-mail the volunteers who deal with requests from article subjects. Any editor so informed who continues to revert the article may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart#Log of blocks and bans.
  • Editors are encouraged to use judgment and discretion in enforcement of this remedy, rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion. The Committee would prefer that Wikipedians who have already had significant involvement in the development of the article leave enforcement of this remedy to their peers.
  • Although the decision mentions certain editors identified as single-purpose accounts, identification of which accounts are SPAs at a given time is often a matter of administrator discretion.
• Article cleanup: This article is urgently referred to the Wikipedia editing community at large for cleanup, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV.
• BLP policy compliance: Any user may fully apply the principles and practices of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to Derek Smart. This may include deletion of the article and its history as well as its talk pages and archives and the project pages and talk pages of this Arbitration proceeding. (Please consult with the Arbitration Committee Clerks before editing or deleting any arbitration pages). Newyorkbrad 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Conflict

I look at Bill's talk page and his contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate (in my opinion) a clear and convincing pattern of editing which (almost) all relates, in one way or another, to Derek Smart. He nearly boasts about having disproven his PhD claim right near to the top of his talk page, and all but a handful of his non-Derek edits have been related to the subject of Diploma Mills. In my opinion, this is indeed a textbook case of conflict of interest, given my conclusion that Bill does, indeed, have some kind of something against Derek, whether he'll admit it or not.

You're preaching to the choir because everyone (at least those with a pulse) already knows that Bill has an agenda that goes back almost a decade. 68.153.194.5

I believe that Bill Huffman is absolutely biased against Derek Smart, I have accessed Bill Huffmans' personal website in relation to Derek Smart, as well as seeing his extensive contributions to Derek Smart's wikipedia article. Though others have stated this previously, I must say that I find this rather disturbing. Bill Huffmans' long running feud with Derek Smart has lasted over ten years now, given the nature of his consistantly hostile relationship with Derek Smart, I can only conclude that it is simply unhealthy for him to be still thus involved with Derek Smart.

Bill Huffmans' interest in Derek Smart frankly borders on an obsession. I shall be watching Derek Smarts' article with considerable interest, as I assume other neutral parties are, because it's simply unrealistic to assume that someone who harbours his level of animosity to Derek Smart could possibly be trusted to edit and contribute to his biography in a non-biased way. 81.129.147.220 (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvments to the Derek Smart article. It is not to discuss tangential topics. As to your exact accusation, you're really mistaken. I don't have any personal animosity towards Mr. Smart. If what you are alledgeing is that I've put biased information into the article then you are mistaken again and it can easily be proven by looking in the history of the article and noting that I've never edited the article. Thank you for your apparent concern in the integrity of Wikipedia but please try to keep your discussion on topic for this talk page. Your entry above does not appear to be a proper topic for this page, at least not to me. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Their is a logical inconsistancy with your statement in that you claim that my comment is off topic. However if you had not read the preceeding comments then you could not have read mine, though if you had read the preceeding comments then you would have noted that my comment is in response to theirs. I have not stated anything here that is heresay, each point that I have made can be factually verified and it is not my wish to become involved in a debate upon this subject with an alleged internet stalker. 81.157.245.149 (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try harder to follow Wikipedia guidelines. Bill Huffman (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I can't deny that Bill's contributions (which is exactly what they are) have (apparently) been limited rigorously to this talk page -- and those comments themselves are just sparkling fine examples of how (I believe) Wikipedia should be done.

So the conflict (should he, or shouldn't he edit here?) is really mine, and not Bill's. But I have written all this to make this point: I feel there is a clear and present danger of this page turning into an extension of what is apparently a 10+ year conversation between Derek and Bill. Given Bill's excellent behavior, however, I'm willing to AGF that he'll not allow that to happen to the detriment of the 'pedia. Right, Bill? I knew you'd agree. ;)

And having said all that, I'll make the point I originally came here to make, before I started reading the latest round of battle here: isn't the above-mentioned flame war one of the things Derek is most notable for? If I'm not wrong, it's considered one of the largest and / or well-publicized of the 90's... And, shouldn't that be discussed, say, in the article rather than only here? Eaglizard 11:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eaglizard, I was curious about your assertion about my

editing which (almost) all relates, in one way or another, to Derek Smart

So I counted about 750 total edits on my part. Out of that there were about 250 edits that were related to Derek, according to my eyeball count. I do admit that one third is higher than I expected though. However, that is still not "almost all" and even further from (almost) all (at least that's my interpretation of a paranthetical almost :-) ). Bill Huffman 20:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bill. ;) I see I wasn't quite clear -- to me the diploma mill related edits were lumped in as 'Derek-related', because that's the most cynical view. I realize it might be the opposite; that your interest in Derek stems from his violation of something you consider quite important (ie, his allegedly fake phd). Essentially, I'm just trying to display one person's take on your edit history; it may not represent how others would see it, but I think my opinion wouldn't be controversial (that your edit history could be seen to be largely about Derek, in one way or another). Ofc, I may be hallucinating, too. Doesn't matter, as I said, given your actual input - which I find interesting primarily b/c it shows that the Wikipedia process is fundamentally sound when ppl follow it, imho. Eaglizard 08:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the Wikipedia process is fundamentally sound. I too find it instructive how the process was essentially broken on this article for so long and how quickly the quality of the article stabilized when the Wikipedia processes could be enforced after the ArbCom ruling. There is still room for improvement to this article, IMHO, but this is admittedly an article of only margainal notability and therefore doesn't really garner the level of interest that more important articles would. Another example of an article where the Wikipedia process has been derailed is California Miramar University. It too demonstrates (at least to me) that the Wikipedia process is fundamentally sound when it can be applied. Regards, Bill Huffman 20:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a ten year history of Derek flame war follies but the Usenet flame war mostly disappeared after 2002. Perhaps we could agree on "(almost) disappeared"? :-) So I would say that the flame war follies really lasted only about 5 years on Usenet. Derek had some flame war activities prior to Usenet and after Usenet. As long as he continues to participate in online forums some remanent of the flame war follies will continue. I think this has again been demonstrated by his participation in this article. I was not a participant in the non-Usenet flame war with the exception of only a few of incidents. Bill Huffman 20:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet you have spent an undeniably vast amount of time analysing and catalogueing this 'flame war' that you speak of. To the point of publishing it in it's entirety, accepting and posting derogative comments from third parties and publishing their insulting images. Furthermore, Derek Smart (in your 'top ten Derek Smart posts' that you have selected amongst clearly many thousands and published in your website) had stated that you directly threatened him with violence and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were alegedly involved. I do not hence believe you can in all honesty down play your involvement in this. 81.129.147.220 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're arguing that I should be mentioned in the article then I must disagree. I was really only one of many that were amused by Mr. Smart's antics on Usenet. Mr. Smart's many irrational and unsupported accusations made on Usenet are unfortunately not considered a wp:reliable_source and therefore cannot be made part of the article. I really don't believe that I'm personally mentioned in any reliable source involving Mr. Smart and so fortunately I personally must be left out of this article. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read this topic. It is in relation to a potential conflict of interest, no where does the above comment advise that Bill Huffman should be added to this article for the simple reason that it is not related to the biography of Derek Smart and Bill Huffman is primarily known for his ten year antagonisms directed at Derek Smart. However if a reputable source were to document Bill Huffmans' involvement in this then I would think it would be appropriate for this to be mentioned. Though as it stands this topic is in relation to a conflict of interest, please be aware of the nature of a discussion before posting. 86.161.221.40 (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine why it would be that if a reliable source were to mention his stalking efforts and beef with Derek Smart that woudl qualify as making it a legit entry. The only way that I can see that being the case is if it is clearly stated that he is a lifelong stalker of a gaming celebrity. Going back to 1996 from Usenet and then on this Wiki (check the archives!) he has demonstrated a clear pattern of stalking, harrassment and imo libel. To see an example, look at the pages of other famous people (e.g. JFK, actresses etc) who had stalkers, assassinators etc. They were clearly stated as such and for historical purposes. Linking to a potentially libelous (I cannot vouch for the legality of anything on Huffman's website neither can anyone or a court for that matter since he could clearly have doctored them for his own purposes since they are hosted on his site and not sourced) site put up by a stalker (for all intent and purposes) is not within Wiki BLP guidelines.

Bill Huffman hangs around this Wiki page in the same way he did on Usenet when Derek Smart was there and in the same way that he used to follow him around the Net and on boards that Smart posted on. Boards where Huffman in fact got banned from. For example [1]. So he no longer has an outlet for his activities so he tries to influence the editing of this Wiki page through hypocritical commentary on this talk page.

And with all this, I don't see any of the regulars here even in the list bit concerned about this pattern.

68.232.167.135 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC).

I appreciate your compliment regarding the characterization of my Wikipedia edits in general.

I agree that there are plenty of good sources that can be and should be used to better cover the flame war follies, especially during the period that you mention. In my view it should probably be about one short paragraph long in the controversy section. I think there should also be some serious consideration as to how the academic credential controversy might be mentioned but, I would make that a second priority.

Editor's interest in this article seems to have wanned. There are a number of possible explanations.

• Derek's exit has made it less interesting.
• Derek's legal threats
• Derek's threats to involve Jimbo and get admins busted
• People feel that the article is fine and have just moved on to more interesting projects.

The good news in this story though is that you seem like you might be interested in improving the article. If so, I will be happy to assist. What would you like me to do? Regards, Bill Huffman 20:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the latter. The arbcom case brought a group of new editors to the page. Going through consensus, and discussion, rather than reverting each other got a notable improvement in the article quality in a relatively short period of time. Now things it needs like a freely available photo are beyond the means of many editors. The upcoming projects probably needs a polish. I'll look for any new info on those over the next day or two.Catwhoorg 11:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to avoid editing articles when they're undergoing a "certain phase" (I don't want to mention that this phase often reminds me of a bacterial infection, but I did it anyways lol). As for what I would like you to do Bill, honestly, I would like you to do exactly what you've been doing here -- only do it on lots and lots of other pages. Do what I do: just browse around the 'pedia, reading subjects of interest, correcting tiny typos or crappy writing whenever possible. Check out my contribs if you want to see the sort of diverse page range against which I've compared yours :). As far as this article goes, do whatever you like shall be the whole of the policy... <grin> Eaglizard 08:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Current/Future Projects

Im making and keeping notes in this section as of now. I'll put a full redraft in a seperate section Catwhoorg 13:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Universal Combat Collectors edition Q3/2007 a package of all the BC and UC series including updates to make them vista compatible [2]. Went Gold 7/16/2007. Not yet listed on Amazon.

Galactic Command - Echo Squad, Release planned Q3 2007 [3]through Gametap subscription [4]. Went gold 3/19/2007 (note - isnt gold to release usually quicker than this ?) Episodic release discussed 02/06/2007 [5]. Four monthly episodes of 16 mission long campaigns.

Galatic Command - Talon Elite, Release planned Q1 2008, MSRP $29.95 [6]

Galactic Command — Excalibur. IGN mentions this as a episodic release [7]

Hostile Intent - Planetfall (No updates found as yet)

KnightBlade - Line Of Defense. (No updates found as yet)

Per [8] Universal Combat:Hostile Intent (PC) and KnightBlade:Final Flight (XBox) Cancelled.

Hi Catwhoorg, the fourth choice is also my favorite but I feel that the first three could play a small part. Regarding the going gold 3/19/2007 comment, historically the Smart releases have usually had trouble getting out the door due to quality issues but, there are other possibilities for delaying a release. Do you (or anyone else) have an oinion on the idea of adding a few more sentences on the Usenet flame wars? If someone thinks that it might be applicable, I'm willing to put together a draft. Thanks for the update! Bill Huffman 15:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There you go again making unfounded statements about him. Don't you ever quit? Where is the evidence that the Smart releases have usually had trouble getting out the door due to quality issues? You need to once again be reminded that this page is subject to WP:BLP and the talk pages are part of that guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.194.5 (talk • contribs)

I think you could safely categorise the majority of video game releases as being delayed due to quality issues in some sense or other. I'm not saying this negates any WP:BLP concerns but it's important to keep the above statement in perspective. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 19:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi 68.153.194.5, thank you for your comment and interest in Wikipedia. I would like to request that you sign all posts to talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). I also suggest that you get a Wikipedia logon account. My statement was really a general comment on the whole software industry and I was considering schedule constraints under the general "quality issue" category. I also suggest that you review the WP:AGF policy. While reviewing the WP:AGF policy I believe that it is also relevant to consider the fact that not all statements on talk pages need be backed up by what would be considered to be a Wikipedia reliable source this is even if the article is a WP:BLP. Although I suspect if I wanted to I could easily find reliable sources saying that software projects are frequently late because of quality issues. Thanks again, Bill Huffman 22:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the release of Echo Squad is not up to Smart. It is up to the licensees, in this case Turner. I searched Smart's news forum and found a release statement about this game. Looks like Turner are holding off on releasing the game for their anniversary. I went to GameTap and apparently another property which they licensed, Sam & Max Season 2 opens at the same time, though that one, unlike Season One, is no longer an exclusive.

For UCCE, here is Smart's statement on his news forum. From that thread, you won't see it on Amazon if Take2 only have the retail rights with 3000AD, Inc retaining the digital distribution. But I'm not sure if Amazon and other retailers moving boxes qualifies as digital distribution. Probably not, since the latter implies downloading the product.

I didn't find anything on Smart's website on KnightBlade and Hostile Intent. They're either canceled or too far off to be listed? But it looks like Bravo Team is the next one after Talon Elite.

68.153.194.5

I tried updating the "Current projects" section back in December, and I found it frustrating due to the lack of hard information. I would get a press release with a title, description and sometimes a pic, along with a release date within some quarter or year. Then I would check a few gaming sites, and sometimes find the game had a page with only the same press release. I'd edit the Wiki page...and then I would never hear about the game again. Then a few months later, Smart would have another new game in the same fashion. I figured they probably retitled the game to make it sound more attractive, but there was never any mention of a connection, or the plot would sound too different. So, after a while, I threw up my hands and gave up.

So, after a few months off of Wiki, I see this issue has been brought up again. I'd like to propose a set of guidelines for Smart's upcoming releases:

1) Put up the game only if it's still presently on Smart's website, and there's at least one corroborating piece of evidence - not just a link to the press release on a gaming site such as Gamespot. Right now, Smart only has three upcoming games listed on his website: UCCE, GC:Echo Squad and GC:Talon Elite. All three of these games have associated evidence, as Catwhoorg has provided above. There's a "GC: Bravo Team" development forum on Smart's site, so maybe that should be included as well, if there's another article about it. There's no Planetfall, Knightblade, or Online RPG mentioned, and I can't find anything about any of those games that's less than a year old anyway. Same probably goes for Excalibur, as I don't see it listed on Smart's front page, and the article Catwhoorg points to - really just a two sentence description - is over a year old.

2) Since release dates slip all the time - I won't go any further, as I don't want our "anon" poster getting all huffy - the date on Wiki should be able to withstand delays. So:

- If the game's due in six months or less, post the most recent and accurate date you can find.

- If it's 6-18 months away, post nothing more accurate than a quarter.

- If it's 18+ months away, post nothing more accurate than the year.

3) Update accordingly. Perhaps if a game falls from the ranks of the upcoming releases, a "Cancelled/Shelved Games" list should be created. This would help gamers who were looking up Smart on Wiki to find out what happened to Game X that he can't find any info about. Perhaps we could do that already with Planetfall, Knightblade and the online RPG.

Well, let me know what you think. Cardinal2 21:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable, pragmatic, and most excellent suggestions, I agree! Thank you, Bill Huffman 01:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Should the semi-protect tag be placed in the article?

Should something like the following be added to the beginning of the article?

• {{pp-semi-protected|reason=of an [[WP:ArbCom|Arbitration Committee]] ruling}}

Then it would look like this. Thanks, Bill Huffman 22:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a pretty ugly thing to add to an article. If we could get by with just a notice in the Talk page, I think that would be better. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 23:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't believe that the talk page is semi-protected, I would vote against adding it here. I appreciate your point about the ugly factor though. Regards, Bill Huffman 23:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There definitely needs to be some indication that this article is semi-protected since this is the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I've placed the small semi-protection icon on the article as I believe that it's the bare minimum that should be there. --ElKevbo 00:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh, it's sooo cute. :-) Thanks and have fun, Bill Huffman 07:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess the bot removal of the semi-protect template settles the question about adding the template to this talk page. :-D Have fun, Bill

great article

I just read a great article. Not only is the graphic delightful but for some reason (?) I kept thinking about the history of this article as I read it. Which made it all the more delightful. Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing Have fun, Bill Huffman 04:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, this whole article is absolutely brilliant. I have no knowledge of Derek Smart, Bill Huffman, the UseNet flame wars or of any of the games released and mentioned. I came across the name Derek Smart whilst perusing Gamespot one day. While the article is good, and helped flesh out the basics of the man himself, the talk page and discussions contained are just wonderful. To see such controversy and vitriol expended over one person almost makes it worthwhile having wasted about 4 hours reading it.

I can understand the dogged pursuit of this man and his followers, the fun in reading the posts made by anonymous IPs, and users evidenced as likely to be Smart himself, is nearly priceless. But better than this is to see rational people dragged into a flame war on a page dedicated to truthful neutrality.

So much of what we see online is basic information presentation, whereas this has been a full human drama, with all the cowardly attacks, blatant egotism, and refusal to accept that we see in everyday life. It is Days of Our Lives writ HTTP.

So congratulations to everyone involved for providing serious entertainment, but also at the end of it, providing a well written and well researched article. This is what I admire about wiki the most, people of differing view points coming together to battle until nothing but decent fact remains. And by god, this was an entertaining battle :) 121.73.78.41 (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

reversion of anon material

I removed the "However, in many cases this has not worked in his favour, being the subject of further criticism." From after the online controversy

"Derek Smart has become known in the gaming community for making aggressive — and lengthy — online replies to criticism of his work, leading to heated and protracted discussions on Usenet and game forums.[2] In an interview which was featured on the cover page of Computer Gaming World, Smart said of his online persona: "Sometimes when I get online, and it's quiet, and I see something that attracts my attention, I'll post just to piss these guys off. That's why I do it. Because I'm in a good mood that day, I go in there and I start trouble."[48]"

Reasons: 1) weasel words. 'Many cases' is vague and uninformative 2) its an unscourced claim in a biographical piece.

Any disagreement with my actions ? Catwhoorg 12:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any source saying it has not worked in his favour, I think that was the correct action. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 12:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Gametap deal cancellation

There's a source for the cancellation of the Gametap deal, the Escapist. If Mr. Anon disagrees that the deal was canceled, could he provide a source refuting the one presently in the article? - Ehheh (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. From reading the original Gamasutra article (which is what Escapist links to) it appears as if the headline was made up by Gamasutra as nowhere in the article did the VP from GameTap say anything about it being canceled. I followed the link that the anon poster on Gamasutra pointed to and Derek's explanation seems pretty straightforward and in public view. From what I can gather, Turner had the license, they opted not to release the game for the reasons stated. Seems pretty straightforward to me and I don't see how that can be construed as the title being canceled. Especially when you consider that he apparently has a new version coming out. Companies cancel projects, licenses etc all the time. In this case it appears as if the licensor is 3000AD and the licensee is Turner. e.g. if EA had the license to a WB game/property and then decided that they didn't want to utilize it, how is that a cancelation?

And where is there an official statement from GameTap saying that it was canceled? Neither Gamasutra nor Escapist nor some guy's blog are reliable sources for this information. GameTap canceled another game, Uru and made a public statement via their PR dept. No such statement was ever made about Derek's game. Which leads me to believe that since GameTap had Uru for a year and didn't renew it, while never releasing Derek's game, the former was in fact canceled (as stated by them). Thats the difference here and I'm not sure why editors here would rather just post what they feel like without excercising due diligence and sticking to Wiki guidelines.

I think that people are using the term cancelation in a derogatory and curiously inaccurate fashion and as some sort of jab against him.

I also found another link on Smart's forum here he had original posted about the license expiring. That post and the GameTap guy's post on their forum pre-date the Gamasutra article.

I was going to correct the article but I'm out of town atm and don't have access to my Wiki credentials on my laptop. Can someone make the correction please, as it seems like anon editors can no longer do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.236.53 (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The claim that Gamasutra is not a reliable source, while entertaining, doesn't seem to be true. They could, of course, be wrong. The remedy for that is to find another reliable source that disagrees with them. Nandesuka (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't making a claim that Gamasutra was not a reliable source. My point was that you can't take the word of a reporting site to be factual when the person they are interviewing never said what they printed. See the difference? Where in that text did the Sanchez fellow say anything about the title being canceled? As you pointed out, the media can be wrong and they have been wrong on a regular basis. Even the NYT get stories wrong all the time. In the case of Gamasutra, they have quite a number of stories which needed updating. Here is one such recent example I came across while searching for an example for this post. They reported it incorrectly, then added an update later. Obviously someone complained about it. So what I'm saying is that unless Gamasutra saw the contract, was clearly told that the contract was canceled, they can't be regarded as a reliable source in this case. Do you see any other sites reporting this? All the sites are linking to that same story.

Derek Smart is really big news in gaming and if this was in fact true or if there was something going on, Turner would have said something, all the sites would have written about it etc. From all accounts and by what Sanchez (who according to Smart, signed the title) said, Derek finished his contract, the game etc. He even said good things about the game etc. So why else would you cancel a title that, according to Derek, and given the costs of game development, cost a lot of money? AFAIK it cost them a lot of money since it was an exclusive to their service. Derek even mentions the word multi-million in his blog. Turner just chose not to exercise their license (which they paid for according to Derek's blog due to (again, according to Sanchez) their own internal reasons and nothing to do with Derek.

This is a WP:BLP article and you guys are not upholding that. Instead a notable detractor sets up shop in Smart's Wiki article and you all act like its ok. I'm just saying. 66.240.236.53 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Anon, if I understand your position properly, you're saying that the game was not canceled by Gametap but that Gametap decided not to release the game and subsequently the contract expired? Would it be proper, in your view, to say that Gametap canceled their planned release of the game? Or Gametap canceled the deal? If that would still not be proper in your view could you please suggest some wording that you feel might be acceptable? Thanks, Bill Huffman (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What is important to note is that the Anons writing style is identical to that of the self styled supreme cmdr, Derek Smart himself. The bottom line is that the deal was cancelled, Gametap realised that as usual Smart had tried to palm off a substandard game to them and that the best thing to do would be to wash their hands of the matter, rather than spending further money trying to market a unsellaable game. Sanchez (gametaps president)should be nominated for a diplomatic posting as he layed it down very mildly when he said that Smarts product "would not go down well with our audience"! So the deal was cancelled and no amount of word twisting from Smart should be allowed to change this.Kerr avon (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that the current wording of the Gametap cancelation of the release in the article, what the reliable source says, and what our Anon friend says are all consistent and in agreement. Therefore, our Anon friend needs to be more explicit and specific about what needs to actually be changed in the article, at least in his own view. I can't resist adding that our Anon friend can't be Mr. Smart because Mr. Smart has been banned from editting Wikipedia and to say he was anyone other than who he says he is might not be assuming good faith.[9][10][11][12][13] Bill Huffman (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Bill Huffman (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Request from IP

Reposted from User Talk:SheffieldSteel... (note that this has since been edited by User:Ho Lee Cow SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)) {{Top}} may refer to:

• {{Collapse top}}
• {{Archive top}}
• {{Hidden archive top}}
• {{Afd top}}
• {{Discussion top}}
• {{Tfd top}}
• {{Top icon}}
• {{Top text}}
• {{Cfd top}}
• {{Rfd top}}
• {{Skip to top}}

Hi, in your recent edit, you removed the Echo Squad product which this company developed for GameTap because it wasn't 'published'. I'm not sure if it makes any difference as to whether or not it was published, but they did in fact publish the Second Edition of the title this past March 7th. Please correct this at your earliest convenience.

Also, removing a title which was developed because it wasn't published is like trying to re-write history or not listing a movie, book or other artistic works because they were un-released or canceled. That does not take away from the fact that the works were in fact created. Perhaps the heading of the section should be changed from 'Published Games' to 'Developed Games'? 207.218.231.211 (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I have added this new title to the list at Derek_Smart#Published_games. I must say that it certainly does make a difference, when compiling a list of published games, whether or not a title has been published. I'm sure you would not want the Derek Smart article to contain inaccuracies, although WP:BLP applies regardless of anyone's wishes on the subject. As for the suggestion of changing the table to list developed games rather than published titles: I'm not sure that such information would be well suited to a table. The "Game Development" section does already go into considerable detail about unpublished works and I think that that is the best place to treat such matters. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

btw that game is actually developed and published by 3000AD (like their previous games), not Gamers Gate. They, like Direct2Drive, Digital River etc are just online portals where you can buy the game. Those distributors also sell all 3000AD games.

Also, I agree that changing the name of the section won't make much difference.

I think it does. So I have made it more general. Just because a game was not released to the public does not mean it wasn't developed. So I have added it to his list of games developed. You can even see commentary and the dev logs from his blog over here and over here. Actual direct link.Ho Lee Cow (talk)

As of March 18th, there is also a new game called Galactic Command Knightblade not in the current projects section. This according to his dev blog and the press release is what Bravo Team was morphed into. So perhaps the current projects section needs to be updated accordingly.

I have made the change.Ho Lee Cow (talk)

Also, someone added an incorrect quote in the Derek_Smart#Current_projects. Thats not what he said. If read post #7 in the second link (which is not even valid in a WP:BLP article since it is a forum post), this is what he said:

In fact, here's my pledge to you: If you're a space sim fan, can't wait for the demo and you buy the game (Gamers Gate already has it online, Direct2Drive follows later today I think) but think its crap, I'm tits up and talking trash, I'll personally refund your money. And you still get to keep the game (i.e. I won't invalidate your DRM license on the server).

He was talking to one single person, that being Hump, the guy he was responding to. The MTV blog (is that link even allowed under WP:BLP?) also recorded it incorrectly.

75.125.163.152 (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Template:Bottom Does anyone want to make these edits? One can only speculate as to why the IP does not want to do so themself. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The MTV link is pretty clear that it's a general offer (and has a follow up quote from Smart confirming it) so I don't see any basis take it out as a factual error. I'll also note that the article is semiprotected, so the IP can't do it himself. - Ehheh (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong. The MTV blog got that quote from a Blues News forum post by Smart. Forum posts AFAIK are not allowed in Wiki. Also note that it was not a general statement at all. He was speaking to one person only: Hump. The MTV blog is just doing what the media usually goes in cases like this: sensationalizing his comment and taking it completely out of context. The language in his comment was very clear and anyone who reads it will immediately see what I mean. But since people are more focused on taking the Wiki entry sideways, common sense need not apply. Thats just wrong IMO. Ho Lee Cow (talk)

Oh. My duh. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely a general comment, not towards one person. "If you are a space sim fan, and you buy this and hate it, I'll refund your money". That's not directed towards anyone, that's towards all space sim fans. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm a school teacher and that is not a general comment. Please read it again and in the context. Even the MTV blog interview clarifies this. But I guess you didn't read that either? Ho Lee Cow (talk)

Edit war

This biography of a living person has been the subject of controversy and edit warring in the past. It is doubly important, then, for the content of the article to be properly sourced and for editors to discuss, and obtain consensus for, changes. In the interests of preventing a revert war, I'm opening a discussion about the change made by User:Ho Lee Cow. These changes essentially match the requests made by an IP editor on my Talk page (see preceding section) which begs the question: is Ho Lee Cow the same editor?

Several changes were made; I suggest that to make the discussion simpler, they might be considered separately.

• Removal of text: On March 19, 2007, 3000AD announced Galactic Command — Bravo Team, an episodic first-person shooter title. The title is currently scheduled for release in 2009.

I can't see any justification of this removal of sourced material. It certainly doesn't seem to be controversial and the source backs up the article text. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That product does not appear anywhere on the website any longer. So the source is invalid. As you stated below, Wiki is not a resume and only should contain sourced material. All products announced and developed by this company are listed on their site.Ho Lee Cow (talk)

Your exhortations seem to be singularly inconsistent in this area: on the one hand, we should credit 3000AD with developing one game, which has not been published, but on the other hand, we should not mention another game that was announced, because it has since then been... de-announced? Unfortunately for your argument, the title is still mentioned on 3000AD's news page, in an entry dated 3/19/07. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Renaming of section "Published games" to "Developed and/or published games"

I don't think it's normal for articles to list every project someone has worked on, even games that have been cancelled. Wikipedia isn't a resumé. (Even if it were, employers in the games industry tend to ask not "what games have you worked on" but "how many shipped titles?") SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. This is a WP:BLP article. Your comment means that if an actor worked on a film, that wasn't released in the theatre or at all, then he gets no credit for the work. Thats wrong and you know it. In the game industry games are announced and canceled all the time. In this case, the game was developed exclusively for GameTap, finished and according to one source, was never released on the service. How exactly do you reconcile that to mean that its inclusion is akin to a resume? By its very nature, WP:BLP is in fact not only a resume of sorts, but is protected by clear guidelines which I have read before making the change.Ho Lee Cow (talk)

Likely a sockpuppet. He's a brand new editor, SPA, familiar with our most esoteric policies, removing sourced material, something that has been a historical problem on this article, even to the extent of ArbCom remedies. If he causes trouble, he'll be blocked. (Note both the ban on Smart and his surrogates from editing the article page, indefinitely, as well as the 1 year arbcom ban on Derek Smart, resetting on each violation, currently not set to expire until 2/23/09) ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith please. I was the one who posted on SheffieldSteel's talk because I didn't want to get involved in this crap by doing any edits. When he didn't take action, I took upon myself to register and make the chances myself. Just because I happened to have read everything that has gone on here and I'm trying to abide by the hostility that you gatekeepers tend to extend with a heavy hand means that I'm a sockpuppet? Really? To me, this is just another fine example of why keeping Wiki clean is full time job because most of you editors have developed this God complex whereby adhering to the rules is above you and any outsider who isn't part of your club, gets this sort of treatment. If this keeps up, I will file a formal complaint and open an rfc on this article. Just like others have done in the past. This behavior by you guys is uncalled for and shouldn't be allowed to stand. Now, my edits are being reverted because I didn't wait for consensus? When in fact none of the past edits were reached by any such consensus? Why did you need a consensus to update a page that is clearly inaccurate and which is WP:BLP protected? Ho Lee Cow (talk)

I also wanted to add that the Second Edition game is published by 3000AD, not Gamers Gate. I did check and source that out before I made the change. Gamers Gate are just one of several sites that sell 3000AD games as you can see here. Also, there is no cited source which shows Gamers Gate (a portal that sells downloadable games) is the publisher. They are just sales portals like Amazon, Yahoo, Direct2Drive etc where 3000AD games are sold. That change was already reverted without anyone even checking it. The previously cited source was an announcement about the game's availability on the service. See another source here. UPDATE: I found other sources for this as well. here, here and here Ho Lee Cow (talk)

Ho Lee Cow, by your editing style, you're clearly a surrogate of Derek Smart, and thus under the arbitration remedy, disallowed from editing the article itself. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever dude. I am just not going to bother traveling this road with you. As I said before most of you think that you are above the Wiki rules. In this case you are ignoring the Wiki standard of assuming good faith just because you can. Using the surrogate argument with zero proof or evidence is just a way of intimidating myself and other editors who subsequently are banned from editing. I don't see how I could be regarded as a surrogate when all I've done is make meaningful corrections to the article after asking someone (on their talk page) to make them. He didn't. Now when I go and do it, all of a sudden I'm a surrogate? The two of you in particular have a habit (as per the numerous complaints on your talk pages) of this pattern of behavior in the removal of pages, blanking edits, ignoring the pleas of other editors, making baseless accusations etc. Eventually like the other disgraced Wiki editors one day a light will shine on your Wiki activities. Then it will all come to an end and your little world will crumble. Ho Lee Cow (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note that the Derek Smart surrogate is correct that Echo Squad is published by 3000ad rather than Gamersgate as falsely stated in the Derek Smart article. Here's a link to Gamersgate that states this. [14] (note: I'm not going to edit the article myself.) Thanks, Bill Huffman (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my bad. I cited metacritic; they're obviously more reliable for some things than others. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You cited Metacritic huh? Then why didn't you change it when I pointed it out on your talk page? Why would you go against the WP:BLP guidelines and rely on a third party site instead of the developer's site? The answer is that you didn't want to change it because you felt that it was going to bother someone. Thats another intimidating and predatory Wiki tactic. Ho Lee Cow (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

that's what the point of the remedy is for: discussion on the talk page, and then others will implement it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is why I brought the discussion here, rather than making changes myself:- so that other editors could discuss the issues and reach a consensus. Unfortunately that has not happened - which is not to say that it can't, or shouldn't. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ho Lee Cow, it appears to me that you asked for two things. One of those items was changing the publisher to 3000ad. That one has been done. I assume that the only problem currently outstanding in the article is the meaning of the refund statement made by Derek Smart. The current article content is fully supported by a reliable source. If you feel that the reliable source was incorrect, (which I think is reasonable that you would know this since I agree that you are Derek Smart surrogate) then you need to get the reliable source to correct their statement. On the other hand, if I did allow myself to edit the article, I would probably delete that refund statement based on the Derek Smart surrogate's request. Bill Huffman (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement about refunding should stand. Smart is a public and responsible person. As a responsible person anything says, any forum posts he makes under his name should be accountable to him. He clearly stated that he would refund gamers if they are not satisifed with his product. The statement was given wide media coverage. If he did not mean such a statement, then he should have corrected it then and there, not sending his surrogates to correct it now. Smart has a habit of making controversial statements and basking in their glory, but when the truth dawns on him about the seriousness of his statement( I can already see disapoointed purchases scrambling for there refund back, and him looking on in horror!) all he can do is to get a surrogate to try to distort facts.Kerr avon (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement is a offer of a general refund. That may or may not be worth including, but based on his past it might actually be worth it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on his past track record of critically panned games, and vigorous self defence of the questionable quality of his games by himself, the statement of a general refund should stand. The fact that the statement gathered a massive amount of publicity shows the importance of the statement, and hence its noteworthiness to be included in this article.Kerr avon (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Some very strong arguments, IMHO, the strongest argument being that if the quote was misinterpreted the proper time to correct it was when it was very first misinterpreted, not now. In any case, it means that Ho Lee Cow needs to get the reliable sources to correct thier statement and then the Wikipedia article can be corrected. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true." WP:V Bill Huffman (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Though this characterization is not meant to imply anything, I find myself noting that the talk pages of this article are often interesting! I'd like to present my view of the articles in question for consideration. Though the statement by Derek Smart may seem universal "In fact, here's my pledge to you:" that very correspondence did begin personally with the opening "hump,". That said, the contention for me is not in the original statement, but in the press verification, wherein by e-mail to the press, the head of 3000AD responded: “I’m quite certain that there may be other takers. Who knows. But regardless, people know who they’re dealing with, so its not like they’re going to try and pull a fast one. After all, this is Derek Smart we’re talking about :D,”. That seemed to be a statement of confidence that 3000AD can handle the possibility of other takers and was not ruling it out. It would seem then that this e-mail opened the door for other takers even if it wasn't intended to do so. Though I do not mean to imply that Derek Smart can lack finesse in regard to dealing with people, I can see where he could have made an implication to the press that could have been unintentional. However I also offer that if that is so, it must be corrected on a higher level than this wikipedia page, as we can only refer to what's been cited. I would offer that our best course of action is to be wary of a retraction or amendment to the article, and report any if they come. 24.250.4.53 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed a biased revision by one of the other contentious editors of this Wiki went unchecked for several weeks. I was waiting to see if anyone would have caught that. While I'm sure that you folks did and opted to leave it as-is, I have reverted it because it has no basis in the article. This is what I've been talking about previously in which you folks who think you own and/or have some sort of carte blanche editing rights will just do as you please while blatantly ignoring guideliness. This club you folks have got going in this Wiki is not helping and its only serving to highlight the problems and biases with Wiki editing and which is echoed in various other Wiki pages and commented on in various blogs and media articles. Any editor worth his salt would have noticed that the edit by Kerr Avon, like his previous edits (do a compare and see) is inappropriate and violates NPOV, not to mention all the weazle word implications. Ho Lee Cow (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ho Lee Cow, being a Derek Smart surrogate you should not have editted the article. Please refrain from future violations of the Arbitration Committee's rulings. Regarding your slanted opinion of Kerr Avon's edits. Here's the sections from the review Kerr Avon's edit referenced.

Interface: It was hard to judge this criterion without having to take blood pressure medication. It’s unconscionable today, in the 21st century, to develop any action-orientated video game for the PC that doesn’t have configurable controls. In this title, it’s impossible to change the keybindings for anything. Adding insult to injury, some of the keyboard commands aren’t intuitive. For example, in most titles, the ESC key defaults to bringing up the game menu or a save/exit game function. Not in Galactic Command. In this title, the ESC key is used to issue commands in the tactical interface. Even worse, when using the mouse to fly, the mouse buttons aren’t configurable, either, so you’re stuck with a left mouse button that fires guns (good) a mouse wheel that selects missile type (good) and a right mouse button that switches you out of mouse flying mode and back to keyboard flying mode (bad, since I would want to fire missiles with it). Considering that the number of controls is so great that there are a number of commands requiring the use of ALT and CTRL, it’s no small issue that the keyboard controls aren’t configurable in any way. At least joysticks and gamepads are configurable, but that’s no substitute for hunting and pecking at the keyboard for the other commands.

There is a further problem that might affect some systems. Portions of the HUD are projected on the cockpit glass. It’s translucent so that you can see through it and not miss out on important details like enemy spacecraft attacking you. The problem is that when you’re flying toward large, bright objects, such as suns or planets, the data tends to get washed out by the brightness, making it difficult to read important information regarding shield strength. It’s possible to adjust the graphics settings to compensate to some extent, but I found it impossible to correct the problem completely.

Overall: There’s a good game lurking inside of Galactic Command: Echo Squad. Problems with the interface and the steep learning curve conspire to make this title less accessible to a large number of gamers, but if you can get past those problems, then you’ll experience a revitalization of the space combat genre.[15]

I also think that it is important to note that the overall rating was only 2 out of 5 stars as mentioned in Kerr Avon's edit. Here's the other part of Kerr Avon's summary, "Reviews of the released game were critical of the nonstandard user interface which is not customisable and the steep learning curve." Therefore, Kerr Avon's summary was accurate in my opinion. Bill Huffman (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten that sentence, taking into account other reviews and trying of course to remain neutral. I've also moved it from the 'in progress' section, since it's been published. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job on rewriting that sentence and moving the sentence. I suggest that the final sentence of the Current projects section, i.e. "Smart has commented that he’d refund gamers who purchased “Galactic Command” ahead of its release and weren’t satisfied with his product." be moved to the new Galatic Command section. Thanks, Bill Huffman (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement: Ho Lee Cow article banned

Under the provisions of remedy 7 of the arbitration case, Ho Lee Cow is banned from editing this article (he may continue to edit the talk page) as a surrogate of Derek Smart. Furthermore, he has been blocked for one week for disruptive editing (removing sourced content to push a POV) on the article after being warned not to. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

USENET all over again

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, well, this fight still going on? I say, interesting indeed! It is like the good ole' USENET days, only then we had two sides that battled more for their personal amusement than for actual belief in any cause. Here, the sarcasm and eye-twinkling have given way to cheap suits of self-assumed importance and lofty but hollow ideals. (Though I give you, Bill, you play the game well, and I suspect you do derive a certain amount of sardonic amusement from it, eh? *tips hat*) This article is an excellent specimen of the death of Wikipedia as a reliable and tenable project. As a social scientist it has given me much fodder for thought, though. Well, goodbye Wikipedia, it was a great idea but a horrible execution. Mikademus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.247.165 (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC) User Sheffield just deleted this entry from the talk page. This of course is utterly against wikipolocy -in fact, some of the flames here were against (apparently) Mr. Smart deleting from this page- so I reverted. Talk pages are talk pages, not the article. You don't delete things people say on the talk pages. Mikademus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.247.165 (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC) I removed the above post per WP:TALK:- Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. I feel that the situation is quite clear, but I am not going to get into an edit war about it. At this point I would welcome input from any other editor. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC) A possible reading between the lines as to what Mikademus was saying is that perhaps a sentence should be added to the "Online Controversy" section mentioning something more about the Usenet flame war. (I do admit though that I'm probably pulling more from my own opinion than really interpretting Mikademus's comment properly.) A sentence that gives the reader a better feel for the length, the entertainment, or number of posts involved. I'll be happy to do a little research and come up with a proposed sentence if anyone is interested? (Since I won't edit the article myself.) Thanks, Bill Huffman (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC) No, you're right and are reading things that I do support from between the lines. There are many things that deserve to be in this article, but I've given up on Wikipedia. It was a magnificent attempt and a spectacular failure. The science-related pages are still worthwhile because the cadre editing them are trained scientists that already agree on principles of publishing and they have a well-defined and near-objective topic, but the more mainstream areas of WP (99%?) suffer from feuding, tribalism and personal opinions, all wielding concepts such as "NPOV", "OR", "relevance", "reliable" etc ad infinitum as their weapons. Often they probably do not know they are destroying WP. So this is USENET again, only less reflecting and ironic.Mikademus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.247.165 (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC) It seems from the above that you really do not want to discuss improving this article, so much as what you believe is wrong with Wikipedia. Perhaps you should instead post at the Wikipedia:Village pump? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Mikademus, I agree that this article has extra challenges associated with it, specifically a lack of verifiable reliable sources, wp:BLP concerns, and a tendentious editor. In my mind this could be looked at as adding to the fun in improving the article. For example, I think the article does a fine job of describing the Freespace incident. In my view the Freespace incident is really not much more than a footnote in the complete Flame War Follies. Perhaps you could be enticed into making some of the improvements that you're thinking of? I would be more than happy to help. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Remember not to feed the trolls⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Give credit where credit is... uhmmm... due?

Hi, this is my very first contribution to Wikipedia. There is a 'Derek Smart' in credits of a video game "Serious Sam: First Encounter", under 'special thanks'; start the credits by quitting. greendestiny 94.250.18.104 (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this information. While I'm sure it's true, indeed I seem to remember it myself, receiving "special thanks" in video game credits may or may not mean a lot, and it cannot safely be interpreted to mean anything in particular. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia prefers secondary sources (such as reviews and news articles) to primary sources (such as game credits) - a secondary source provides much-needed interpretation of the material in the primary source. More info about primary, secondary and tertiary sources is at WP:PSTS. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wording suggestion

Under the "Upcoming" header in the main site, there is as of the time of this posting, the phrase:

"On 2008-11-6, 3000AD today announced a new game, All Aspect Warfare". Removing the word 'today' from this entry would seem ideal. 24.250.4.53 (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Figured I'd post again, under the 'FreeSpace licensing' header, the line "In a recent All Games Radio interview, Smart stated..." It might be better worded as "In an interview", "In a 2007 interview" or "In an October 2007 interview...". All would be factually correct, but for the sake of precision I would choose the last of those options. Either way, with 'recent' being a relative term, it might be best to remove it from an article.

Also, as to citations, beneath that same header, there is this statement: "The rumors of Smart's involvement started when he posed the question, "Would you buy Freespace 3 if I made it?" on the Adrenaline Vault forums. In the next paragraph, though, Smart clarified his supposition stating that he was only "seriously considering" licensing the FreeSpace engine."

While this might assuredly be true, I observe two potential problems. Firstly the way in which he was quoted has us reading the phrase 'only seriously' which seems to be a contradictory statement. This could be merely important to revise, in my uninitiated experienced opinion. Secondly, the quote is not from the citation given. In fact, there is an extremely slightly significant difference between the quoted phrase and the provided citation, which notes Derek Smart as saying "I have FULL intentions of getting this license." (for sake of note, emphasis was not added by me). Therefore the citation might need some revision, or at least clarification. Perhaps by stating something to the effect that that Derek Smart was once quoted as having had full intentions to get the license for the FreeSpace franchise, but that ultimately he ended up pursuing the Galactic Command franchise. 24.250.4.53 (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Article on Derek Smart

Here's an article on Derek Smart that might have some content that could be used to enhance the article. If nothing else it could provide another reference for some content already in the article. The End of the Industry Will Be Televised Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a hardcore detractor of this Smart fellow should even be allowed to edit the article nor offer suggestions for what should and shouldn't be included in the Wiki. There are stringent rules in WP:BLP which prohibit the entering of material such as the one you are suggesting. Apart from the fact that it bears no relevance to his biography, it is an opinion piece by a gaming 'tabloid'. Please refer to this excerpt from WP:BLP Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.236.53 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 2 March 2008

Hmm, I remember a while ago that the infamous coke machine incident couldn't be included for lack of a source. It this GameSpy article sufficient to mention it as, if nothing else, part of the myth surrounding the Derek Smart character? [16] Miqademus (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The original publication that first inaccurately reported the issue, retracted it. Both are linked to in the Wiki and thus do not fall within the WP:BLP guidelines. Wiki is not a tabloid.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.236.53 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 2 March 2008

In my opinion that would be a reasonable source to use as a way to add the tidbit to the article. If it was included I would suggest that it be mentioned directly in the article that Derek denies that the incident occured. Bill Huffman (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No it is not a reasonable source and there is no basis for its entry. We might as well stick a camera outside his home and when he stumbles and stubs his toe, come and post an entry about it here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.236.53 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 2 March 2008

I have to add that inappropriate suggestions and edits like this are the primary reason that Wiki is under such attack and assault. This Smart page I see has once again been protected for the same reasons as always. There are those who want to taint it and turn it into a tabloid. Then there are those who want to keep it flatering while ignoring NPOV guidelines.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.236.53 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 2 March 2008

---

The chronology of the debate in this section is seriously messed up, and the confusion is further added to by the numerous anonymous edits breaking up comments and linearity. Also, they seem obviously tendentious. Anyway, a biography can --and should-- certainly discuss not only hard, material facts about a person, but also that which surrounds a person. Ever read a cold, statistical biography? You want your such a biography written about you? Derek Smart's antagonism is his very --and entire-- fame. And, true or not, the coke machine incident is one of the most famous legends about him. The incident's materially truth is not relevant, and the legend's existence is factually undeniable. It is an archetypal example something biographically highly interesting. The only possible BLP problem with documenting it would be as positing as empirical truth without significant sources backing it up. Documenting it as part of the Derek Smart legend is not only justified but required. Miqademus (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon please remember to sign your entries. It is very confusing what you said as opposed to what others said when you ignore the guideline regarding signatures. You also still continue to make entries to the talk page without putting in the dates so that the conversation can be followed. You also continue to place your entries in the middle of old conversations instead of the bottom. Please read Wikipedia:Signatures. thank you, Bill Huffman (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Miqademus, I definitely agree with you. Anon, I do not edit the article itself in order to avoid any appearance of even the possibility of a conflict of interest. The ruling by the Arbitration Committee was that there was no problem with my contributions here on this talk page. I will never edit the Derek Smart article itself nor any other article associated with Mr. Smart like his game articles, for example. My contributions to Wikipedia are publically available and so you may verify that yourself, if you wish. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikibumped this discussion by moving it to the bottom. Anyway, are there any other sources for material to add to a "Legends surrounding the character of Derek Smart" section? Miqademus (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Beating up a coke machine (denied by Mr. Smart) is a very famous story. Perhaps the most famous bit of lore about Mr. Smart is beating up the coke machine and it should be added to the article (IMHO) with the obligatory statement that Mr. Smart denies the story. Here's some sources for the coke machine story. [17] [18][19][20][21] There is more that could be added but IMHO the current greatest bit of lore missing is the Coke Machine incident. Which should be fairly simple to remedy. Bill Huffman (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Some mention of the extent and timespan of The Great Flamewar (the Usenet flamewar) should probably also be mentioned, since it was perhaps the longest running and most encompassing one known. Do we have any sources for this? Miqademus (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree - first I ever heard of Derek Smart or Battlecruiser was because of my interest in other strategic type games back on the usenet in 97 or so. The flamewar that ranged there - and followed Derek wherever he went to other forums - was and is probably remembered by an entire generation of gamers as being the longest running flamewar in history. The only one that I can recall that even came close was on one of the alt.metapsyche (or something like that) groups that was between the groups creator and a very dedicated bunch of 'detractors' who didn't like his thought policing (that flamewar lasted maybe 4 years, but had less than thirty major contributors. Where it really differed from Smart's flamewar was that real-life confrontations took place off of usenet, and restraining orders were issued, IIRC. There was only one 'legal' incident in the BCK wars, when LouisJM got Derek to send him a copy of the game gratis, and then they ran into each other at a local parking lot. Derek then made claims that Bill Huffman had 'sent' LouisJM to stalk Derek, which was extremely unlikely, as evidenced from posts and emails that were later revealed, and from the complete lack of police response besides Derek filling out a report).

There are, I believe, several sources that refer to Derek as a 'usenet' personality. I think this needs to be included, if someone can dig this up. Certainly it can be argued that he has more 'fame' in the gaming community from usenet and his vocal forum battles (and from his frequent disputes with publishers) than he ever got from his games, which, while ambitious in scope, never made much of a splash in the industry and usually ended up in bargain bins or sold as 'value' titles.Jadopt1999 (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Jadopt

Found this - http://www.dmoz.org/Games/Video_Games/Action/Space_Combat/Battlecruiser_Series/desc.html Do you folks think this is sufficient to cite the controversial flame war? The page has a total 'semi-complete' feel to it - it's akin to putting an article up on someone like Gary Hart, but leaving out the controversy surrounding him and Donna Rice. Derek's 'fame' stems mostly from his notoriety as an 'internet personality.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadopt1999 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Information

Hi guys, just doing the cruise through, this page is a bit of a shambles. I had a quick flick through the talk page archives and see you have had plenty of troubles already with edit wars/puppets etc. BUT! This page is pretty underdeveloped. Perhaps adding in some information that is not critical or contentious? Such as -

Birthday / Place of birth / Single or Married / City of residence / Picture / Education Background / Timeline of published games / Developers & Publishers worked with etc.

Seems like a lot of this information has been on the article in the past but has been removed during various wars. Arguably he is not a heavy hitter in the industry (as compared to a John Carmack or Sid Meier), but with several titles released, its worth having a little bit of biographical information.

I am not a confident editor, so I will leave it to those more proficient than I. Cheers for all your hard work, and an interesting talk page read :) 203.211.71.18 (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ph.D

Per the very long discussion, most recently in archive 6, I removed the Ph.D after his name.(so a partialy revert of the prior editor)

Two reasons: 1) it is unreferenced via a reliable source in a Biography of a lving person 2) it doesn't belong in the header. With a reliable source it could be added later in the article. Most people on wikipedia with Ph.Ds do not have that title added after thier name in the article lead Catwhoorg (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

AWARDS

On the 3000AD homepage http://www.3000ad.com/ there is a claim "3000AD are the developers of such award-winning titles as the Battlecruiser, Universal Combat and Galactic Command series" Surely as they have won awards these should be mentioned in this article - so what awards did they win? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.65.67 (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that info would be considered unduly self-serving as self published information. Mr. Smart, in general, could be considered to be unduly self-serving and so one must be extra careful to make sure that such claims by him have other sources before they can be included in the article. These titles only had generally mediocre reviews. I can't think of any real awards that these titles actually won. There was only the obviously bogus TRON award given to the horribly incomplete first release of BC3000ad. This was a very silly award by an unknown organization, ACAS, that appeared to be a thin facade for Derek Smart himself. It appeared out of nowhere, gave a game that no one could play because of bugs (and no description of key commands) an "academy award" for advanced AI (IIRC), and then in a few months disappeared with it's website being given to BC3000ad as an additional gift. This additional gift was announced only after it was noticed by someone that they had the same IP address, IIRC.[22][23][24][25] Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Expanded Lede

The expanded lede "and is as well known for his online presence as he is for the games that he makes." uses Ebay as a citation, which I do not believe is a reliable source. Unless I'm missing something, that citation should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.46.9 (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

POV?

Firstly, let me just say I've never heard of this person before reading this article. However, my immediate impression on reading it is that it possibly does not conform to WP:NPOV policy. This person is presumably most notable as a computer game designer; however, by far the most detailed part of the article is the 'controversy' section (which is always a bad sign). This article includes claims such as 'Smart is renowned for lengthy and aggressive online responses to perceived criticism and is as well known for his online presence as he is for the games that he makes.', with sources such as an eBay biography and a comedy article (The Daily Victim). These sources simply aren't good enough to justify the negative tone. Perhaps better sources can be found; alternatively, this article should be rewritten to reduce the amount of 'controversy'. Robofish (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked the article, and your exact reading may be slightly off, or I could be misconstruing your statement. If you're saying that exact sentence you quoted is sourced by E-bay and The Daily Victim, I believe it is sourced by E-bay and Computer Gaming World. Though it should be said that, as we are all slaves to reliable sources, the E-bay citation should be removed to my view, source checking makes me question whether it is editor POV, or the view of reliable sources, that lends its weight to the wording of the article. For the editors consideration, I offer this citation which is entitled "Why I love Derek Smart". As I read it, the title is not ironic or satirical. However, it says this in the body of the article: "He does not shy away from controversy; indeed, he usually either invites it or spawns it."

Whether Gamers with Jobs is a superior source to The Daily Victim, I'm not trying to weigh in on. But, if The Daily Victim alone is not an ideal source, this might provide stronger backing to the wording of the article. That's all I had time to check in on, however, I too would welcome a removal of the E-bay citation. Computer Gaming World I have no particular qualms with, but if I could boldly remove E-bay as a citation, I would. Therefore I invite a wikipedian with an account to do so if they are so inclined. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, based on things I have read at various gaming sites over the past few years, I would say this individual has more notoriety as an 'online personality' than he does as a game designer. I think his 'contributions' to the gaming world are overshadowed by his 'contributions' to online flamewars. The article has gone through a lot of revisions, and this one seems to be the most 'stable' so far. Jadopt1999 (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)jadopt aug 25 2009

I agree completely; if Derek didn't have a bighuge mouth on him, nobody would ever have noticed his near-vaporous gaming company. He has essentially released one game (with version updates). His fame rests solely on his own rather extensive efforts at self-aggrandisement and their sometimes often comical results. Imho. Eaglizard (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

True, the reason he has been able to release the same game so many times is that it is in fact so little known that it's not really known that it essentially is the same game, just with updated graphics and some new features added on. The game is a ho-hum so what, never making any splash (except being a notable huge mistake in the first release). Almost all notability is the conflict that seems to follow Mr. Smart where ever he goes. Even here on Wikipedia! [26] Bill Huffman (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Given your history with him, you are in no position to make any sort of commentary about this person, are you? What exactly is the basis of your commentary above? None. How is someone releasing games in a series different from what any other game company (e.g. EA, Ubisoft etc) does and continues to do? Everything you continue to post here is exactly the same thing you used to post on Usenet and on message boards. It is irrelevant if he releases the same game a million times, that has noting to do with anything apart from the fact that he has released fourteen games over a twenty year period. Games which obviously people are buying and playing thus keeping him in business - a business where so many have come and gone since his first game. 68.232.167.135 (talk)

Another source?

A bigdownload.com article also appears to identify game developers with "fragile, albeit large, egos and can't stand anyone not loving their baby." as having "Derek Smart Syndrome", which uses this site as a link. Though the site it sends you to in the article, flamewar follies, has broken links, regardless the bigdownload.com piece seems to strengthen the case of Derek Smart's notability as a vitriolic game developer. Thus making a point for the neutrality of reporting Derek Smart as such. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. If that were the case, why don't you go over to the Wiki pages for the other people mentioned and edit them? Opinion pieces do not fall within the Wiki BLP guidelines.68.232.167.135 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC).

Semiprotection review

• 17:05, 23 February 2008 Swatjester protected Derek Smart ‎ (Semi-protection: Vandalism, sustained vandalism by Derek Smart and his surrogates, per ArbCom. .undefined [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

The arbitration case in question was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart and the notice is still at the top of this talk page.

As over 18 months have now passed, and it's two-and-a-half years since the arbitration case, I'd like to review to see if this semiprotection is still necessary. As well as welcoming the opinions of regular editors I have contacted Swatjester, the protecting admin. --TS 07:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlike recent semiprotection reviews, I think this is a case where it is better not to unprotect. Smart has shown himself in the past to violate the arbcom rulings, skirt around through proxies and surrogates, and generally screw with this page and its related entities (such as the pages for his games). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Swatjester. History of this and related pages, I believe, have proven that a very deteremined tendentious editor can hamper the Wikipedia editting process to the point of making it ineffective. An important part of the Wikipedia editting process is semiprotection which protects Wikipedia from these kind of abuses that are part of the editting history of this article. If the semiprotection were removed, I believe that the same tendentious editor is still waiting in the wings and eventually could (likely would) revisit those same abuses on the editting process. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I, too, agree with maintaining semi-protection. Let's be honest, what are the odds of an IP editor coming in here with information to edit into the article anyway? Don't misunderstand the jovial jab, though! I do completely agree with semi-protection, and though I've been visiting the page for a while because the subject material can be considered interesting, I also know that I'm more than capable of weighing in here on the talk page without causing damage to an arbitration committee remedy. Therefore, I am quite content to do so. I feel that with an article subject such as this, involving a significantly less well known but still notable person, the stability and integrity of the article should be protected over ease of editing. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the semi-protection should remain for now. Isn't there some change coming down the pipe about biographies and 'approving' changes. Getting this page under that system would allow the semi-protection to be lifted. Catwhoorg (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Apart from the fact that the page is in fact poorly (as someone already pointed out, the online controversy is more prominent than anything else on the page) written, it should remain protected.

btw, the link to his website is broken. It should be 3000ad.com. Also, he has released fourteen games to date - and that too needs to be corrected. There is a list over here [27]. And he recently announced his new game, an MMO over here [28]

Also, there are many industry articles on Derek Smart which could be made a part of the page. But nobody wants to bother with those because they are busy looking for negative material, all of which fail NPOV. Here are some recent ones. [29], [30], [31], [32] 68.232.167.135 (talk)

Update needed in article

I think that the following news item is worthy of note in the article. That is that Derek Smart has been put in charge of Quest Online the company building Alganon.

• http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/272349
• http://www.massively.com/2010/03/10/david-allen-leaves-alganon/
• http://qol.com/companyAbout.php

I also find it interesting that the QOL profile for Derek makes the unsupportable assertion that Derek has a Ph.D.. Bill Huffman (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)