Misplaced Pages

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)

Weasel Words

I believe that the main page no longer contains any weasel words and I am planning on removing the tag. Can anyone point out a usage of weasel words on the current main page.

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)

No

1. Supreme_Cmdr 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations).
4. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages principles (especially Misplaced Pages:Guidelines for controversial articles and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, but there are some good reading in Misplaced Pages: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 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. However, referring back to the matter at hand, while some content may not be included in Misplaced Pages, 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 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 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)

Misplaced Pages founder seeks more quality

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1700AP_Wikimania.html

Protected

Article is now protected. Please reach consensus on how to proceed. When you are ready to resume editing, place a request for un-protection at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wording of the werewolves link

Seeing as we have a consensus to include the link to werewolves.org, the main bone of contention here is how to describe it.

Saying that Derek Smart considers it to be character assassination, libel, etc. would need a reliable source. A first-party source would do, in my opinion. If Supreme Cmdr (or anyone else) can provide this, then I would withdraw any objections to the description being included (although it might be better as a paragraph in the article rather than in the external links section).

Remember that WP:RS does not apply to the content of sites linked from articles, in other words a page linked to does not need to consist entirely of content that would be suitable for use on Misplaced Pages.

Could people please propose possible wordings? Stifle (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a factual, yet brief description of the site. Actually, the way it is now, although I'd probably revise "(likely to be critical of Derek Smart)" to read simply "(critical of Derek Smart)" as it's not "likely" it's critical; it's a fact that it's critical. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree there is consesus. According to WP:RS and WP:EL the link should not be included. Addhoc 16:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A straw poll has 70% for the link. Also, I'm not aware of anyone besides User:Supreme Cmdr who is removing it. Is there a better measure of consensus? - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, I wouldn't say with certainty that the link passes the policy test. I think there is consensus on inclusion of the link based on what I said above, however I do see your point as well. Stifle brings up a point I think I've seen before (although I cannot find the source in policy) about WP:RS not applying to WP:EL, specifically in the context of an external link not being used as source material for statements made in the article, therefore it's not held to the same level of scrutiny. It's simply a "here's another point of view". - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if there is an edit war, many Wikipedians will decide not to get involved, which is fairly sensible. In this context, I agree that SC was the only user reverting, but the views of other users should be considered. Could you indicate where the straw poll discussion is? Lastly, a quote from WP:EL: "Links normally to be avoided

Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material.

1. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.

2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)"

Addhoc 17:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the poll is right above us. And yes, I've read the policy and I do see your point. Thing is I think the consensus is valuable, especially considering most here are not looking for the site to be used as source material; it's just a point of view and is especially notable (third result after this article and DS's own page on a Google search). I think applying this policy might be arguable; we can't say for sure if it's factually inaccurate. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. JBKramer raised some interesting questions here SC RfC Talk that suggest he also isn't convinced the link should be included. I agree "we can't say for sure if it's factually inaccurate", however we could describe the claims as unverified. Addhoc 17:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Except for his last edit, JBKramer pretty much said what you are saying now. All good points. His last edit does bring up a point in that the link is actually mentioned from the gamespot article. The article actually atrributes it as "good summary". I don't think this is a reason to exclude the link; it might even strengthen the case. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so 7 users want the link and 5 have doubts. I don't consider this to be a consensus. Also there are other users who interpret WP:EL in a similar way, suggesting that web sites that include unverified claims should not be included. Addhoc 18:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

To pick nits, 7 users say yes, 3 say no (you just joined that list), and 1 is on the fence. Agreed, though, the consensus is no longer clear.

"Also there are other users who interpret WP:EL in a similar way, suggesting that web sites that include unverified claims should not be included.". Yes, and I can understand that point of view. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 20:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is just a circular argument.

• WP:EL precludes that link from being allowed
• WP:BLP has clear guidelines for editing biographies such as this
• WP:AB has clear guidelines for editing biographies such as this
• The Guidelines for controversial articles has guidelines for editing articles such as this

There is no consensus. The link is blatantly libelous and cannot be allowed in the Wiki article. Thats just the long and short of it. This is a link with an article by Bill Huffman, noted Derek Smart detractor and net stalker, that claims Derek Smart suffers from NPD. Seriously. And thats a valid point of view? Are you KIDDING me? Thats like saying Nuggetboy here, is closet transvestite. He may be just that, but we don't know. So, what if I created a page that claims just that, then linked to it from his Wiki page? Of course he won't be much affected since his identity is unknown. But that is not the same thing with Derek Smart who this Wiki bio is about.

Supreme_Cmdr 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart himself is more than welcome to sue this Huffman person for libel and get the werewolves site taken off the net, if that's the case, though the site seems largely to be made up of Usenet postings and personal opinions, neither of which constitute libel. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be in the business of evaluating the rest of the internet for possible legal infractions. That's someone else's job. Since it's an offsite link, WP:BLP doesn't have anything to say, other than we can link to Derek's blog or personal site, and unless you're claiming to be Derek himself, WP:AB doesn't apply. Regarding WP:EL, the argument is whether it contains 'factually inaccurate material or unverified original research', since otherwise it would easily fit under the section saying that "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link ". I'll contend that the site's main factual assertions are that certain usenet flamewars took place, with copies of the posts themselves, and which I don't think anyone disputes. I'm not sure what the WP threshold for 'verified original research' is, in regards to those... --Aim Here 22:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

To say that nothing on the site constitutes libel is just a blatant display of ignorance. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, nor what libel is. You might want to read up on that, and the Huffman site, before making such obviously stupid comments. Everyone is an attorney. Supreme_Cmdr 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Inlcuding you, apparently. The point is that that really isn't Misplaced Pages's problem. The point isn't even whether everything on the site is "true." The only question is whether it is a reliable source for the statement "Derek Smart has been involved in many flamewars over the years". Nandesuka 12:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Nandesuka, I agree. However, the information contained in the site is unverified, consequently this isn't a reliable source and should not be included. Addhoc 13:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it means that material from it should not be quoted into this article. Not that it shouldn't be linked. Unless I'm missing something... Stifle (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Can it be agreed that "the Werewolves site is a large collection of flamewars, satire and articles related to DS"? One can argue that since Huffman is either a participant or instigator of flamewars with DS, that merits an external link to Werewolves, regardless of whether or not items on the site are unverified. In describing DS flamewars without a link to whom he was engaged in conflict with is one sided. Tomlouie 13:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is wrong to claim that the werewolves site contains unverified material. The material is supposed to be USENET postings and it can easily be verified with a archive of USENET posting like google groups. If Smart or supreme_cmdr makes the allegations that the are false, it would be nice if they could show a example posting on the werewolves site which does not match the google groups archive, which would show that huffman modified it. The werewolves site is currently the most exhaustive analysis of Smart's role in the flamewars, and it should be compulsive reading for anyone interested in Smart, thats why it is included. 220.247.249.23 13:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. The fact that Usenet and similar postings do not pass the WP:RS test, also means that anything that links to them, don't either. Even a close scrutiny of WP:EL causes it to fail that particular litmus test. You can't bypass the Wiki guidelines via proxy. Apart from that, it is not just Usenet postings that are on the site and you very well know that. Not to mention that Huffman's site is not about the flamewar. It is specifically about Derek Smart. BIG difference. It just so happens that Derek Smart, Huffman and a bunch of other anti-social nitwits, were part of said flamewar.

Supreme_Cmdr 17:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That is completely fallacious. It would mean that every article on Misplaced Pages which used a source that linked to any usenet post would have to be removed. Stifle (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but the werewolves site contains material other than USENET postings. There are a significant number of statements about Derek Smart that constitute unverified research. Consequently, this isn't a reliable source. Addhoc 14:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Save your breath. They ALL know that, but choose to ignore it. Hence this debacle. Supreme_Cmdr 17:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I completely agree with it. The site is not a reliable source, but that doesn't preclude it from being linked. It just means that its content, opinions, statements etc. can't be included in the article. Stifle (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:EL: "Links normally to be avoided

Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material.

1. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.

2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)"

If we agree the site contains unverified research, then we should not includes this link. Addhoc 17:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could have a example of what are considered considerd unverfiable research in that site. Even if that is the case i see no reason why it precludes linking to the site from the article. What we all must realise is that wiki guidlines are just that, they are guidlines, if we strictly apply them to articles then articles would be butchered mercilessly.

If USENET is not considered a reliable source then why on earth does the Torvalds article contain the following "In August of 1991, Linus publicized his creation on the USENET newsgroup comp.os.minix." That should be removed too, as a link to google groups are unverified according to the wiki. There is nothing to prove that Torvalds posted that message about the linux kernel years ago. If torvalds USENET posting can be justified to be included the way it is, then why do we want to have a different set of rules for Smart, were every USENET link for Smart is banned, but for Torvalds it is allowed.

Also for example take Jerry Falwell , a far more noted and controversial figure than Derek Smart. Falwell's page contains a link to a site critical of him "Fallwell.com – Christopher Lamparello's webpage critical of Falwell", which can again be argued to contain unverified material on Falwell. However that has not precluded it being linked to in the article.

So rather than have inconsistant double standards we should go through articles of a similar nature on the wiki and let at the very least the link to the werewolves site be in Smart's biography, just as the link to fallwell.com is on Falwell's page.

220.247.244.90 23:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I would suggest this could be regarded as unverified research "his game is known as one of the worst unmitigated disasters ever released". Essentially you are, by your own admission, going directly against Misplaced Pages policy. Personally, I would prefer if policy was strictly applied and large amounts of cruft was, as you put it, butchered mercilessly. Anyway, in the context of this article, I confirm there is no consensus regarding the werewolves link. The burden of responsibility is always on the users wishing the material was included. Consequently, at present, the link should not be included. Addhoc 15:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly counts as original research? How do we separate opinion and research? The Huffman site contains accurate usenet postings with a running commentary. So far, so good. It also contains a page where he speculates that Smart has NPD, and is upfront about the fact that in doing so he is engaging in nothing more than speculation. He makes no truth claims. Is his specualtion opinion or research? It's difficult for me to parse right now. --Beaker342 22:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research is defined by WP:OR. We separate opinion and research in accord with WP:NPOV and WP:V. The Huffman site isn't a reliable source as defined by WP:RS. Addhoc 22:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How can Addhoc make the claim that " The burden of responsibility is always on the users wishing the material was included. Consequently, at present, the link should not be included.", as the last time the Straw poll was taken, the majority wished for the link to be included in the bio. 220.247.248.26 12:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the statement "Ok, I would suggest this could be regarded as unverified research "his game is known as one of the worst unmitigated disasters ever released", what we have to realise is that it is actually correct. BC 3000ad was one of the most overhyped games, Smart having had the luxury of working on it for over 7 years, Smart himself did nothing to help matters by boasting about neural networks etc, but when the game was released it was unplayable with frequent crashing, even a click caused the game to crash, there was no functional manual too, and every reputed game reviewer lambasted the game. Here are some examples...

So thw fact that his game was one of the "worst unmitigated disasters", is actually verifiable results as evidenced by the links above. 220.247.248.26 12:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Burden of Evidence

According to Burden of Evidence, "the burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain". Addhoc 14:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability not Truth

According to Verifiability not Truth, "one of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers". Users wanting the werewolves linked included are inappropriately discussing whether the information is true, which is completely irrelevant. The only area of meaningful discussion is whether the site is a reliable source. Addhoc 14:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can limit the discussion that way. If the link falls under any of the WP:EL's five criteria for 'What should be linked to' (I think arguments can be made for it falling under 3 or 5) then whether the site is a reliable source is a moot point. Ehheh 14:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fansites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. Werewolves is the major BC3K/Derek Smart fansite. 75.11.185.48 14:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, people are confused because the guideline as written is confusing. We are bringing truth into this because the guideline does not state that verifiability applies to external links, it only says that they must be factually accurate. Nor does it state that external links must be reliable sources. It does not say that WP:RS applies 100% to WP:EL. It only says that they may not contain original research, or at least those with original research are normally to be avoided. If reliability were to apply to external links, it would says so clearly. Unfortunately it doesn't. That said, I am inclined to be conservative because of the controversial nature of the article.--Beaker342 14:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

External Links

According to WP:EL: "Links normally to be avoided

Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material.

1. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.

2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)"

The werewolves site contains unverified original research and consequently should not be included. Addhoc 14:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc, Do you think that this is an article 'with multiple points of view' and that the werewolves link is a prominent site dedicated to one of those points of view?

Do you think that the werewolves site contains 'meaningful, relevant content'?

Ehheh 14:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the werewolves article contains unverified original research not meaningful, relevant content. Addhoc 15:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll just note that I disagree that the two things are mutually exclusive and leave it at that. Ehheh 15:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The wording of WP:EL seems to have changed recently, so as to seem to collapse WP:RS into WP:EL. I'll note that the gamespy article, itself a reliable source, calls the werewolves site a "good summary" of the flamewar. Of course that itself doesn't mean that werewolves is reliable, but it does provide independent verification of its notability. Perhaps that's the best that supporters of including the link can hope for -- linking to a page that links to the werewolves site. What I'd really like to return our attention to is rebuilding a balanced and well-sourced account of the flamewar. In the revert war over the werewolves link it was an unfortunate casualty. Obviously we can't link to the flamewar itself, but there is literally tons of reliable websites that talk about it. We should be able to construct something out of the pieces of those articles.--Beaker342 17:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

uhm, no. While Gamespot is a reliable source, it does not in any way, shape or form endorse the Werewolves link. In fact, the Werewolves link is not a summary of the flamewar. It is Derek Smart attack site. It may have been a summary of the flamewar at one point, but I suspect that when the Gamespot article was written, the site (after having been shut down at various ISPs by Smart's attorneys) was probably going through one of its many transitions whereby materials were added, removed, revised, edited etc. Supreme_Cmdr 12:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Beaker342 cited the gamespy article (not gamespot). Here is the line from the article, verbatim: "The intricacies of the flame war are very complicated, but there's a good summary of them here." and the word "here" is linked to "http://www.werewolves.org/~follies/". - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons

According to WP:BLP, "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...". I would charecterize the werewolves link as a low quality reference containing poorly sourced negative material and consequently should not be included.

Also according to WP:BLP, "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist". From this discussion, I would suggest the inclusion of the werewolves link is borderline and consequently, according to the guidance of WP:BLP, should not be included. Addhoc 15:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir. I have already cited both these sources before - verbatim - but these folks just choose to conveniently ignore them. Supreme_Cmdr 12:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet again: I am not ignoring it. You are confusing the issue. That policy applies to content of the encyclopedia, not to external links. It is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Stifle (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are. You are ignoring the standards required by WP:BLP, which has clear guidelines which trump even WP:EL and WP:CS, hence the reason it even exists and is an entire guideline all by itself. You might want to go read it again. Supreme_Cmdr 13:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Which part? The only part of WP:BLP that even mentions external links merely says that Derek's blog can be included. I see lots of guff about libel, which is presumably what you mean, but none of that applies to external links. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, and should not have to second-guess whether or not Derek Smart will bother trying to sue some offsite webpage for libel or not--Aim Here 23:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask Addhoc and supreme_cmdr who have conviniently doged the issue of Jerry Falwell , who is a far more noted and controversial figure than Derek Smart. Falwell's page contains a link to a site critical of him "Fallwell.com – Christopher Lamparello's webpage critical of Falwell", which can again be argued to contain unverified material on Falwell. However that has not precluded it being linked to in the article.

explicitly says "including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such."

Yep that settles it. 68.79.53.95 03:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Only a blind gerbil on acid would make that assumption. Especially since the Werewolves site is neither a fansite, nor WP:RS. Not to mention that WP:BLP already addresses the inclusion of negative material which may be suspect and outside the scope of WP:BLP. You're obviously not a blind gerbil on acid, but do try to pay attention. m'kay?

Supreme_Cmdr 16:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil and post constructively. Discussing a hypothetical "blind gerbil on acid" adds nothing to the discussion. The WP:RS is not the same as WP:EL (that is why Misplaced Pages has WP:EL and WP:BLP discusses the inclusion of negative information and facts, but does not mention external links in any way, whereas WP:EL does explicitly mention correctly annotation external links for fansites and stresses that the number positive (or negative) links must not overwhelm the other. Thank you.68.79.53.95 03:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart is better known than either Erich Schaefer

(the designer of Diablo) or John Smedley (a designer of Everquest) although those games have sold dozens more copies than most of the BC3K or Universal Combat titles.  But Derek Smart is a household name while their names are trivia items.  The reason for this is that Derek Smart is a much more charismatic communicator.  So much so that fans have written plays about him A Battlecruiser Named Desire, have written interactive games based on his persona Derek Smart fighting game, and even a movie about his game BC3K Desktop Commander.  A Derek Smart History has been archived: History.  The WP:EL explicitly states that linking to the largest fan site is preferred, which is what the Werewolves site is.  It would be a disservice to Misplaced Pages to omit the link.  So, what VERIFIABLE text do you suggest?  (Please don't claim that Derek Smart "vehemently disputes the truthfulness of this commentary and regards it as libel & character assassination" unless you have a source for such a claim - the link text must be verifiable).68.79.53.95 03:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest "Unofficial Derek Smart Fan Page" although the "Unofficial" adjective may be unneeded. There is no "Official Derek Smart Fan Page" (I believe this is common for fan pages - no one offers a toast for themselves, so there are likewise no "Official" fan pages), so possibly "A Derek Smart Fan Page" or "The Major Derek Smart Fan Page" would be more descriptive (as well as Neutral (as in NPOV)). I believe that this is a neutral description that both neutral Derek Smart fans and neutral Misplaced Pages editors can agree on, although the Official/Unofficial phrasing may take some discussion - perhaps Nonofficial would be best. 68.79.53.95 03:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Take Pat Robertson , note that at the end a site which contains "Anti-gay quotes from Pat Robertson" which is extremely critical of him, and analogues to the werewolves is linked from the main Robertson article.

The Mel Gibson article contains a external link "How to boycott mel gibson http://media.slate.com/podcast/Explainers/060804-BoycottMel.mp3"

So why are we having double standards, external links critical of smart are not allowed to be published but for others like Fallwell and Roberston such external links critical of them are allowed. So why are we having double standards for Smart and Fallwell. As allways we see supreme_cmdr twisting the wiki guidlines to his own advantage to remove comments critical of smart.

220.247.250.95 16:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's easy. There are over a million articles and about two thousand article which are good or very good. So about 99.8% is crud, which proves Sturgeon's Law. Addhoc 17:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Apart from that, they are calling for a boycott of Mel. Falwell's views are also controversial. If someone were posting that Mel was gay or that Falwell suffered from AIDS, had NPD etc, it would never stand. That is what is going on with the Werewolves link and the big difference that you are conveniently ignoring. The Werewolves link is a blatantly libelous site which, unlike the others cited, has no merits in terms of Smart's actions in society or in the public eye. If it was writing about his games or his actions, thats fine. But it goes beyond that. Supreme_Cmdr 13:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Am i correct in assuming that Addhoc's definition of a good article is one which implements wiki guidlines 100% in a draconian style, which is butchered mercilessly. In that case Smart's article would contain only the text , "Derek Smart is a game developer who developed bc3000ad now universal combat". supreme_cmdr should not be allowed to add any other masturbatory excesses (like driving around in a mercedes sl convertible, winning lawsuits etc), and the detractors should not be allowed to post a single negative text either. As you can see if this was rigorously implemented it would make most articles uninteresting and bland.

However the straw poll reveals that most of the users want the link included in the biography and we have to respect that. Since USENET is not a valid source for a wiki, i am off now to edit the torvalds article and remove the USENET posting link for linux, lets see what happens. I want to see what kind of input it generates.220.247.250.221 23:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, according to the quality scale, which is also linked to at the top of this page. Also straw polls are not binding, see Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in democracy. Addhoc 10:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Fan Page Discussion

75.30.203.153 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart is better known than either Erich Schaefer (the designer of Diablo) or John Smedley (a designer of Everquest) although those games have sold dozens more copies than most of the BC3K or Universal Combat titles. But Derek Smart is a household name while their names are trivia items. The reason for this is that Derek Smart is a much more charismatic communicator. So much so that fans have written plays about him A Battlecruiser Named Desire, have written interactive games based on his persona Derek Smart fighting game, and even a movie about his game BC3K Desktop Commander. A Derek Smart History has been archived: History.

The WP:EL explicitly states that linking to the largest fan site is preferred, which is what the Werewolves site is. It would be a disservice to Misplaced Pages to omit the link.

I suggest that the link be captioned: "Unofficial Derek Smart Fan Page" although the "Unofficial" adjective may be unneeded. There is no "Official Derek Smart Fan Page" (I believe this is common for fan pages - no one offers a toast for themselves, so there are likewise no "Official" fan pages), so possibly "A Derek Smart Fan Page" or "The Major Derek Smart Fan Page" would be more descriptive (as well as Neutral (as in NPOV)). I believe that this is a neutral description that both neutral Derek Smart fans and neutral Misplaced Pages editors can agree on, although the Official/Unofficial phrasing may take some discussion - perhaps Nonofficial would be best.

To get an idea of what the concensus view for the link description should be, I would like to take a straw poll after we have a few ideas for the link text.

The current suggestions are: 1) Unofficial Derek Smart Fan Page 2) Derek Smart Fan Page (Unofficial)

Please add other good faith suggestions to the list above 68.79.53.95 02:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. And how is the Werewolves link a fan page? Nice try though. It'll never happen.Supreme_Cmdr 11:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome!

I have used the Misplaced Pages Fan Page definition to help you see fans here for Derek Smart. I believe that the owner of theWerewolves page may actually fit the "Big Name Fan" definition below. [Note that I am not saying that you or others are also not big fans, but that ~technically~ I don't believe that the ~definition~ for "Big Name Fan" applies to you.

Here is the Misplaced Pages definition for fan: There are certain common characteristics to be found in fans interested in different topics and that these characteristics influence the behaviors of those involved in fan behavior (Thorne&Bruner 2006).

Those common characteristics include (Thorne&Bruner 2006):

• internal involvement. Fans focus more of their time and resources intently on a specific area of interest than a non-fan would, and are not significantly concerned if non-fans (including family or friends) don't derive pleasure from the area of interest. Fans usually have a strong enough interest that small to major changes in their lifestyles are made to accommodate devotion to the focal object.
• desire for external involvement - are motivated to demonstrate their involvement with the area of interest through certain behaviors (attending conventions, posting online, etc.)
• wish to acquire - fans tend to express a strong desire to possess material objects related to the area of interest.
• desire for social interaction with other fans. This again may take many forms, from casual conversation, e-mail, chat rooms, and electronic mailing lists to regular face-to-face meetings such as fan club meetings and organized conventions.

There are several groups of fans that can be differentiated by the intensity level of their level of involvement or interest in the hobby (level of fanaticism) (Thorne&Bruner 2006).

A Big Name Fan is a term for a fan who has achieved notoriety and respect within a fandom, usually for their fan fiction or fan art contributions. Big Name fans may have fans of their own and be asked for autographs.

I hope this helps. 68.79.53.95 18:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't. Its nonsense and you clearly have no clue what you're talking about and are just once again distorting a definition to suit an meaningless agenda. Nice try though but no cigar. Supreme_Cmdr 14:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What supreme_cmdr or anyone else cant deny is that there is no prohibition in the wiki for adding a link to the werewolves site as a external link. 220.247.251.203 11:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently you are correct, including the link would only be against the guidance of several procedures including WP:BLP and WP:EL. However, if a lawyer gave an opinion the inclusion of the link was libellous, then, in that instance, including the link would be prohibited. Addhoc 17:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Erm, actually, that would be insufficient, if a lawyer gave that opinion. Lawyers are not judges, the description as libel would only matter if the opinion came from the Wiki Foundation's own legal counsel, or a bona fide court decision. Lawyers claim things all the time, and, by the very nature of their profession, disagree on almost everything

Fox1 (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I meant if Misplaced Pages's lawyers gave that opinion, then including the link would be prohibited according to policy. Addhoc 15:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Libel Discussion

75.30.203.153 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC) This section is intended for any legal opinions about the Derek Smart page and its links. 75.30.203.153 20:01, 27 August 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 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 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 , 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages seems to treat it as a valid source for what was said on Usenet. If it's otherwise, then someone needs to go through Misplaced Pages and AfD great chunks of it. There are plenty of Misplaced Pages 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 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 Kerr avon 07:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Supreme_cmdr has threatned to return with a anonymizer if banned and continue to edit , 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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/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 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 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 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 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 13:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have re-added the GameSpy sourced statements which WarHawk removed in his WP:NPOV edit. Supreme_Cmdr 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 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 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 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 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"></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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 , 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 . 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 , 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 ] 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 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 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 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 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 . It is extensively cross referenced by most of the articles about Smart 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 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 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 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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 13:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As per your suggestion, I have edited the wording of the ratings. Supreme_Cmdr 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 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 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 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 , 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 .

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 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 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 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 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 .

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 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 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."

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)."

3. "The developer, Derek Smart – himself no stranger to controversy regarding his games" .

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], making the werewolves site the 4th google ranked result 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 13:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

]] 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 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.

2.

3.

4.

The list goes on...

Give me a break!! NONE of those - apart from GameSpy (which is already listed) - is WP:RS. Supreme_Cmdr 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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).

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 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 Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. --ElKevbo 13:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

You're not the final arbitor of rules. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 18:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Smart single handedly was resposible for the longest running flame war, a google groups search for "derek Smart" , 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 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 .

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 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)

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 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 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)