Talk:Medievia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Votes for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 31 March 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents

[edit] Consideration for locking?

There's been a bit of vandalism on this article recently - first an anonymous "contributor" decided to delete the entire article, and subsequently, another anonymous user (IP matches the MUD's) replaced the article with an advertisement for the game, with no reference to any criticism. Would it be possible to nominate this article for "locking", at least until the passion for edit wars dies down? Or is there an "append-only" mode to prevent complete deletion/replacement? According to the article's history, several users have contributed to the article in its present form, so if any of you are still reading, let's discuss the issue!

[edit] Discussion over article format

Tom Blackstone: There was an earlier user who did in fact replace the article with an advertisement. My changes did not do this. Instead, I simply gave basic information about the game and then followed it up with a "criticism" section that contained all of the information earlier writers wanted included in the article. There is a difference between giving objective information about a game and "advertising".

Traumerei : Hi Tom, Thanks for moving to the discussion page - revert wars are silly. I appreciate your desire to include a blurb about the game (you must admit though, that it was largely information from the game's own website, and the article until then was mostly in a "metadata" format); also I disagree with some of your statements about the game. If you want to rework your contribution such that the original focus of the article, the discussion of the MUD's origins and license violations/counter-claims, takes primacy rather than being relegated to a section below the large blurb about the game, I'd certainly be willing to look at it. The article currently lacks clarity since there's been some back and forth (the "advertiser" was a MUD admin), and it could use some reworking, certainly.

Traumerei: I've edited the Medievia entry; the edit adds sections titled "Controversy", "Counter-claim" and "Overview" sections, and is reformatted for clarity. Right now, the Overview section links to the medievia homepage, but if you want to add information in that section (from the website (preferably not verbatim - I'm sure it's under copyright), or your own impressions as a player), please go ahead and I'll take a look. Thanks.

Tom Blackstone: Traumerei, the changes you made substantially improved the article. I especially like the fact that you divided the "Controversy" and "Counter-Claim" sections. However, it is inappropriate to have criticism of the game listed at the top of the article. A good guideline for doing this article would be something like is found on the article for Everquest. It contains a description of the game, followed by substantial criticisms in a "Criticism and Social Issues" section. However, I am not against putting a brief reference to the controversy in the introduction, so that casual readers will be alerted to the fact that there is information on that further down the page. I have added a new edit. Let me know what you think.

Traumerei: Hello - I've been away for a while, hence the silence. I like your layout, and some of your changes for clarity; I do however, disagree with the placement your rather over-large "overview", which is essentially an information dump about the game culled from the website; Everquest isn't really a valid counter-example, since it's fairly sui generis, and any controversies associated with the game are far overshadowed by the game itself. In fact, early in its career, Everquest was accused of borrowing code from a MUD codebase - they issued an invitation to the DIKU coders (among others, I believe) to inspect their code, and it was determined that no violations had occurred. The medievia entry was started to catalog the controversy rather than present trivia about the MUD (there's plenty of that on their own website), and the large overview that you added takes primacy due to its sheer length; frankly, there aren't any particularly original observations in the overview that make it interesting. I will, however, let it stand for now. I did move around the more obvious advertisement like statements ("the game is free" and so on - it may technically be free, but at the higher levels you're at an extreme disadvantage without the purchased items), and added a note about the game corporation's "for profit" status. If anyone else has any comments, please chime in.

[edit] The fallacy of the counter-claim

The "counter-claim" section is rather ridiculous as it is, though. This person can rewrite to his heart's desire, but the fact remains that it is built upon the basis of someone else's work. That is the essence of a derivative work, and Mr. Krause's claims of "I've rewritten it!" does nothing but solidify the fact that it is derivative, and not original.

  • This is not strictly true. Rewriting of partially-copyrighted code has long been considered an effective way of removing copyright-encumberance from a combined work; see the history of BSD and of IBM PC compatibles. The "contamination" theory of derived works is also being tested in the SCO lawsuits. Medievia has a respectable argument that extensive code rewrites have caused the current version to no longer be a derived work of original. The remaining questions, of course, are whether Medievia code has indeed been rewritten to remove all stock Diku/Merc code, and whether the rewrite has been a thorough rewrite and not simply (e.g.) renaming variables. Both of these questions are unanswerable for the current version of Medievia code without access to said source code. --Majromax 21:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Majromax said "Both of these questions are unanswerable for the current version of Medievia code without access to said source code", and the article says "A large file containing leaked Medievia version 4 source code", and then later... "Medievia's owner Michael Krause claims that these allegations are unfounded and that the entire MUD has been rewritten completely in version 4, thus making it no longer a derivative work.".
      • The article says that Michael Krause claims that the accusations are unfounded because it was rewritten for version 4. Since 4 is the one that got leaked and then compared on a web site, and 4 is the one that everyone has said is in violation of the law, and Michael's claiming that it was rewritten for 4... doesn't that make it obviously wrong? Until some other authors come forward to talk about 5, then we don't know for certain about 5 or later... but 4 we already know about! Atari2600tim 12:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Medievia v5.0 is the same thing as Medievia v4.x, but with radical changes to the gameplay; features that exist in both v5 and v4 are fundamentally the same in the way they are coded.

[edit] A good website with a fairly comprehensive discussion of the controversy, with source code excerpts

- a comparison of Merc 1.0 and Medievia IV The site, as well as the comments by "Thranz", a programmer for the game who was removed because he felt compelled to discuss the DIKU controversy, make it clear that Medievia IV was, at its core, pretty much a DIKU mud. The bit about converting from C to C++ is laughable from a programmer's perspective.

  • The real question here is if the changes that were made were enough to remove the copyright. There is a legitimate legal question as to whether the code as a whole was changed enough. Sure the leaked code may bear some resemblence to the original, but if enough of the code was changed I don't believe that would as a matter of fact guaruntee the copyright remains in place. I firmly believe there is extreme biased on this website with the leaked code and all statements made from such a POV should be taken with a few grains of salt.

Wilderop 01:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Update from Michael Smith (aka Highlander)

this was added to the page by somebody in this edit and is more appropriate for the talk page. I do not vouch for what it says or anything but I don't want to just plain delete it, and I know it doesn't go in the article :P Atari2600tim 15:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The information contained in this Wikipedia entry is very dated, the code which we used to build Medievia from was of course Diku, but it has been well over a decade since then and by this point the code is no longer Diku in any way. An arguement could be made for stating that since it was originally based on Diku and still retains much of the style of that original program that there is still a cause for arguement. Since the original coders have never seen fit to drag this out it has always surprised me that there are so many vocal individuals willing to continue discussing this to this day. It's 2006 as of this entry and Medievia began in the early 1990's, I think it's time for people to let this issue go.

[edit] External links

Comment: Michael A. Smith has proven to be unable to accept the current issues with Medievia in various discussions. His views are his own but have been proven to be false. He simply does not acknowledge the facts and keeps on delivering his poorly crafted propaganda in order to "fix" the permanently tarnished reputation of Medievia. This thread on MudMagic demonstrates that noone should take his views seriously: http://www.mudmagic.com/boards/chat/18/842/842 Link no longer available

[edit] Redundant

Is any new information provided by this edit? Here's basically how it goes now...

  • Here is a summary of the point of view of the owner and admin of Medievia
  • The point of view of the admin of Medievia can be found at this link (link).
  • (next section)Here is a link to Medievia.

If it's just repeating then there's no point in having it there; is there something added that I'm just not seeing?Atari2600tim 04:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Traumerei: Agreed - if there's going to be redundancy in that area, perhaps there should also be a sentence in the bit about "Medievia 4" being a completely new game, mentioning that both former programmers for the game, and a copy of the source confirm that there was a fair bit of Diku code in that version.
Well, what it says is 'Medievia's public stand on this issue can be viewed on their website(link).', what drew my attention was that it's the owners' 'public' stand, and that this is noteworthy because among the programmers they have another stand which is different than they tell outsiders. As you pointed out, apparently people who programmed it say that there's Diku code in it and that the only people who are being told that there isn't Diku code are the outsiders (public). Should it just be reworded to say "This is only the public stand" or something? Atari2600tim 12:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another comment by 'Michael Smith' moved to the talk page.

Again, doesn't seem to belong in the article. Ehheh 12:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Multiple times I have added my input on this issue in this Wiki and multiple times it has been removed by individuals who refuse to allow other viewpoints. I founded Medievia with Mike Krause in 1992, I am Michael A. Smith (Highlander). I won't bother to bore you with once again submitting my views on this matter except to say that, should you see this, know that everything you read here in this Wiki is subject to the removal, on a whim, of several unscrupulious individuals who have their own agendas here. My best advice to you is ignore all the controversy about this decade and a half old overblown Infocom wanna-be text game and if you enjoy playing it, fine, if not, fine. I long ago lost interest in the whole MU* world, it's old, it's flat, it's boring and it's dead. Move on people!

[edit] Re above

Obviously can't spell. 82.42.225.31 02:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And obviously cannot let go of the issue, despite his repeated exhortations for others to do so. Many years ago, I was quite heavily involved with the movement to expose Medivia for what it was; a DIKU derivative, which it remains to this day. Reading some of the comments here, there's a lot of tunes in this song that haven't changed much in a decade. Tarc 04:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ha ha

Gotta love the way they run the game like it's a business. You have to 'apply' for builder positions!! It's like they're paying you for your work!

At the end of the day, this is a sub-standard game whose playerbase is going to diminish rather than grow. It will definitely be overtaken by graphical MMORPGs. 82.42.221.6 18:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

on most muds you have to apply for building positions. It ensures that when the admin/Implementor 'hires' a player and grants them building status, they won't use the commands granted to them to severly damage the game.

Medievia.com, Inc. is an incorporation, so it is a business. Medievia hires all of its immortal staff, some of which are paid employees of the company. (ANON)

Well, you're a cunt. 82.42.221.6

[edit] explain what is and is not trivial for non-programmer readers?

An anon in this edit got rid of the second half of this quote: "Krause has now updated the code to 64-bit" ... "which is, again, a minor alteration and still means that the game is still based on stock DIKU code."

I think that going into more detail regarding 64-bit stuff is worth mentioning, because a computer illiterate person might be under the impression that it is difficult to do and that it requires a significant amount of work beyond downloading a new compiler. A simple line (like it originally had) explaining that it's trivial would suffice. I'd like for there to be a consensus about it, so if someone agrees then go ahead and re-add it :P --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 12:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I re-added a bit about how big a change it is, but left out the language about stock DIKU code. That 64bit is easy, in and of itself, certainly does not prove that the game is still based on stock DIKU code. I think it's fairly obviously still DIKU myself, but we should let the reader decide. I also took Krause's name off the sentence since it appears that someone named 'Ozymandias' [1] did the work for him. -Ehheh 14:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest updates to page

Versions prior to the November 3rd edit were in drastic need of a rewrite in certain areas. Sections contained redundant and/or non-linear information. The edits made between November 3rd and 8th fixed some of these problems and new information was added for better clarity and understanding of the game. Traumerei's revert on the 8th to an earlier version seem to be an act of vandalism. His ability to edit articles should be reviewed.

Thoughtstipated 06:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the article is in need of a rewrite in certain areas. However, "Thoughtstipated"'s edits did nothing to improve the artice; while I don't dispute the content of his/her edits, the quality of those edits were quite poor. In addition, statements such as: "Administrators (known as Gods), are extremely biased when it comes to matters that require their attention. There is absolutely no equivocal enforcement on game rules. This is especially true when it comes to enforcing proper-name or clean-language rules." without any attributes or supporting information do nothing to enhance the article. The content may well be true, but such broad, sweeping statements do not enhance the article and are not NPOV. In addition, "Thoughtstipated"'s revert reinstated spelling errors and the like. Removal and rewriting of the present section on "donation" items (which mentions that Medievia is a "for-profit" company, in violation of the Diku license) in favor of a poorly written section titled "Medievia's marketing strategy" with bits of game specific terminology (and rewording what is effectively the sale of items with talk of "gifts" and "user donations") did not enhance the article either. I am one of the primary contributors to this article (especially with respect to the sections on the Diku license violation) and would prefer that the article retain a professional tone and remain reasonably NPOV, rather than turning into a rant by someone who appears to be a discontented MUDder. If "Thoughtstipated" would like to rewrite his/her contributions (such as they are...his existing edits added no new information besides game specific terminology) or add genuinely new information with attribution, I welcome those contributions. Please retain some level of detachment when adding contributions--note that I have no objection to the content of the additions about biased immortals and so on (I'm personally no fan of Medievia, but my goal here is to bring to light their license violations and so on, rather than mire the article in some interminable discussion of MUD administrator behavior, disputes about which are present on any MUD), but such accusations should be phrased in a professional manner. Traumerei 02:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC) I've further edited the article, incorporating "Thoughtstipated"'s note on mud clients, as well as noting that the game isn't really "free of charge" due to the necessity of so-called "donation items" for competitive play--if you'd like to add a more detailed note on how those items affect competitive play, feel free. Traumerei 02:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War Continues

Well Traumerei, if your expertise is regarding the code issue, then you work on that. We could argue all day about what constitutes improvement of an article and what doesn't. I state nothing but fact in my changes. I am not a 'discontent' MUDer. If my changes were based on opinion rather than fact, I could see where you are coming from, however they are not, and I have reverted the article once again. This time I put more time into the overall editing of the article and fixed many more spelling and grammatical errors which your fixed versions lacked. It seems to me that you want to omit certain information which would be considered controversial only if you were looking at the article from an advertising point of view. Certain facts look bad because in fact there are some ugly aspects to the game.

I suggest that rather than continue this reversion/edit war we discuss each point of conflict on our views and come to a compromise. Just because you don't think certain changes are warranted does not mean you should revert to a version which you probably wrote substantial parts for. I don't like reversion wars either. My ultimate changes are reflective on overall facts regarding the game good, bad or ugly. I am not slandering or smearing the game. If something looks particularly bad, then the game is doing it to itself, I am only bringing it to light. Thoughtstipated 19:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lets Discuss Changes Before Reverting Again

[edit] Regarding POV issues and reverts

Traumerei, can you briefly list the points of the article one by one which you feel are in need of omission or rewrite and why? I am willing to compromise on certain information. If you can provide this list (preferably in point-form), I will be more than happy to debate you on each particular point, however:

  • Just because certain information does not do the game itself any justice, I will maintain my position that I am stating fact regardless of how it looks from an advertising standpoint. I am neither promoting or bashing the game.
  • I feel that the emphasis of the last section concerning code theft is and has been an attempt at a long-lasting smear campaign against Medievia. I will agree it is worth mentioning to a degree, but many people have ranted on about this subject for years now, and at this point it is very trivial. I respect the fact that you, amongst others put a lot of time into writing it, which is why I did very little editing to the content of that section, I merely reorganized the cosmetics of the overall article organization.
  • To say that my modifications regarding the section on game administration and how matters are handled did not improve the article is purely your opinion. The statements are in fact true, and if you were to ask any player on it's accuracy, I am sure you will find more people agree with me than not. I do in fact have a NPOV, if someone interpets my modifications as otherwise and removes them, then neutrality has been compromised by someone elses biased POV.
  • I will overlook the Marketing Strategy content again and consider rewriting parts of it. To say it was poorly written is once again your opinion. And by removing it you compromised neutrality.

Thoughtstipated 20:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traumerei's response

  • Thoughtstipated, I've incorporated some of your grammatical changes, but I prefer enclosing portmanteau words in quotation marks to match current usage in various online games ("reclass", "respawn" etc.) I have no objection to adding descriptive subsection titles and such either, but while I've made an effort to attain some sort of consensus by incorporating verifiable information from your edits, you have not done likewise, so your stated desire to compromise has yet to be demonstrated.
  • The section titled "Medievia's marketing strategy" is the crux of your edit, but has nothing to do with their marketing strategy. You have deleted crucial information about the game's for-profit status and other observations pertaining to the license violations. Feel free to add information about the cost of so-called "donation" items (I'm sure that will be useful to people looking to play the game), but do not delete prior content which has been arrived at through previous consensus amongst multiple contributors (this article has a long history). Do not attempt to gloss over this point with claims that my edits are biased (my personal view is that Medievia is a long-standing license violator, and the game has done much to damage open source MUD development efforts, and both of those statements have a great deal of corroborating evidence, but I've always welcomed arguments to the contrary as well as information about the MUD; in fact this article has become something of an advertisement for the MUD due to the long "overview" section, but such is the price of consensus and compromise). However, that has nothing to do with my efforts to provide an NPOV, factual perspective and my desire to see that this article is reasonably well-written; unsourced and unsuppoprted arguments/personal opinions about administrator bias regarding in-game conflicts are not in the spirit of Wikipedia's aim to provide verifiable content--if you want to link to an external website which discusses administrator bias, or provide concrete examples (perhaps in a separate article linked to this one, since discussions of in-game politics will probably reduce the coherency of this article, which already rambles to some extent), feel free.
  • Your statement that discussing the license violation constitutes a "smear campaign" reveals your own bias--the violations have been documented in thorough detail. However, the majority of the article text does not deal with this, and despite your stated respect for the contributors, you have (as I've noted above) removed information in the section dealing with "donation" items about the game's for-profit status etc. Again, if you want to merge information about the cost of such items and the typical cost of a year's play, I welcome such additions.

Traumerei 21:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] After asking to debate this article...

After I had formally made a request to discuss these outstanding issues with Traumerei (under the POV and reverts section) Traumerei had reverted the article to his version of it without discussion. I also suggested in my editing comments that if Traumerei did not like aspects of specific sections that he should edit them appropriately if he feels the statements are wrong or need editing. His reversions to outdated and poorly organized articles are incomplete and warrant further expansion which I believe I have done by minor reorganization of information and the adding of applicable sections. I make no claims which cannot be proven. By no means are my additions to this article biased or misleading in any way. Thoughtstipated 23:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Thoughtstipated: Please respond to my comments above (in section "Traumerei's response"--you did not address my points). I did incorporate several of your changes initially, but you reverted to your version immediately. This happened five or more times, all without any response to my comments above. Note that the version of the article as of 16:08 contains some of your changes--I believe that more of your changes can be incorporated (such as the cost of in-game items and so on, noted above), but you have consistently refused to merge your changes, and instead have deleted the section on the game's for-profit status etc. (detailed elsewhere). Merely stating that your claims (which really are phrased like personal opinions) can be proven does not make it so--please expand upon said proof. Please let me know if you're actually interested in merging your changes, as suggested above. Traumerei 23:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC) Okay, I've looked at "Thoughtstipated"'s comment below and will make a further attempt to incorporate some of his changes. Stay tuned. Traumerei 23:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Medievia

This article has been subject to dispute in the past few days. I request input from interested observers and Wikipedia administrators regarding the subject 22:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

I have attempted to merge those portions of User "Thoughtstipated"'s contributions which can be regarded as verifiable. However, user Thoughtstipated has deleted content which was arrived at previously through consensus amongst multiple contributors (in particular, regarding the game's "for-profit" status, which is pertinent to the license violation controversy), and has introduced unverifiable and unsupported information regarding bias by MUD administrators and the like (a common complaint in any online forum/game, and one that was quite unverifiable in the form introduced, as well as detracting from the NPOV tone of the article). He has also, despite his stated willingness to discuss changes to the article, engaged in wholesale reverts without responding to my comments about unverifiable information and deletion of content. Admittedly, I have been guilty of the same on a couple of occasions when reverting his reversions to versions that included some (but not all) of his changes, but prior to that I made an effort to incorporate some of his additions (and can make further attempts to incorporate those of his changes which can be considered verifiable/supported, but they keep getting reverted!). Traumerei 22:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  • A further note--User "Thoughtstipated" has continued to refuse to respond to my comments on the Talk page, and has engaged in further wholesale reversion (what's the policy on users who refuse to engage in discussion?). I have reverted once again to a version of the Medievia article incorporating some (but not all) of user Thoughtstipated's changes (and again, am willing to work with him to incorporate further, verifiable changes). I will also note that user Thoughtstipated appears to be new (no contributions prior to Nov. 3 2006) and has contributed to just two articles including this one; this coupled with his refusal to obtain consensus or engage in discussion (and his insistence on including unverifiable statements as well as deleting existing information) suggest that he's unaware of Wikipedia's guidelines regarding articles. I request administrator/third party input.

Traumerei 23:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have already stated, if Traumerei feels that I have made an error in any particular section, he is well within his boundaries to modify the section appropriately. The section in question regarding the "for-profit" status may have been removed somewhat accidentally, as I agree with him on this matter and would not oppose it being there. I reworded that part of the article differently (on my original alterations) but the point still comes across that in order for one to be competitive in the game he/she must donate. If that is the only concern which Traumerei has, then he should modify the section to suit his needs. There is no reason to revert the entire article to outdated and obsolete material because one small piece could be interpeted as inaccurate. Thoughtstipated 23:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traumerei's Concerns

To satisfy Traumerei's concerns, I will append the marketing strategy section to include that Medievia is a for-profit organization as this seemed to be such a centralized area of concern. I do apologize for this was such a small detail that neither of us could resolve without annoying reversion wars. I basically figured that although my wording was slightly different than his, that I achieved the same ideal. It's sort of funny how we can disagree so strongly about things yet share the same views. I just did not understand the need for such an extreme rollback for something so minor.

Thoughtstipated 00:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to above

Thoughtstipated, I am also concerned about the unverifiable claims of bias and so on--while they may be true, you need to add supporting information (and I don't think an overview of the game is the place to engage in such discussions). Also, I still remain of the opinion that the previous section on "donation items" was better worded, and would suggest that you add information to that section about the costs of the items and so on, rather than deleting it outright in favor of your version which is more "conversational" in tone. Traumerei 00:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] todays revert war

Here are the changes that I got from skimming the last couple diffs:

  • "gameworld" vs "game world", "Clantown" vs "Clan town", etc changes
    • One is correct english, one is what Medievia's web site uses (I'll find you some examples if anyone wants); either is fine, neither is a typo. If you use the one that Medievia uses, put quotes around it. Something like "Clantown" is self-explanatory, so it's not really necessary to explain what it is, but if you want then that's fine too... it might help people who don't have english as a first language or something and aren't going to find "clantown" in their dictionary but will find "clan" and "town".
  • "Accessing the MUD and a note on "donation" items" vs "Medievia's Marketing Strategy"
    • These are two different topics, and it doesn't make sense to combine them into the same section.
  • some other rewritten stuff in that section
    • the game actually IS for profit, and they don't use the money just make sure the game is "kept alive"
    • lack of discussion forums - this should be sourced, since lack of a discussion forum on its own doesn't show anything like that
    • admin bias - this isn't noteworthy
  • thing about donations and gifts
    • Things are actually bought, they aren't gifts that cooincidentally were given to the player at the same time as when the player gave a gift of some money... it's something that the player actually purchased with money
  • "Medievia claims otherwise" vs "The Counter-Claim"
    • Medievia claims nothing, it's a game, and does not know, say, or claim anything. The from-scratch-rewrite claims are made by people.
  • "license violation" title vs "controversy surrounding code authorship" title
    • They actually DO use Diku without following the license, and the license is the only thing that gives them permission to use it; not following the license means not being allowed to use it. I'm unaware of any controversy surrounding the authorship of Diku, or surrounding the fact that it was based on Diku. In fact, the only controversy I'm aware of is that they recompiled it to run on a 64 bit processor and have claimed that something as trivial as this would require a complete rewrite, or that going from C to C++ would take any work... I'm unaware of anything that would actually show evidence of not using Diku anymore. So it's appropriate to call it license violation or code theft.

Some of that's mentioned on the talk page already, some isn't. Please explain if there is any disagreement with the above. I'm not going to edit any of it today, but leaving input as a third party. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 00:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: today's revert war

  • Agreed about "gameworld" vs. "game world" etc. (I changed it to "game world" in my changes, which I believe user "Thoughtstipated" agrees with). I opted to leave "clantown" etc. as is, since it matches the game's usage (I believe), but have no opinion one way or the other--if you have a strong preference, feel free to change it, as long as it's consistent.
  • Agreed about the "admin bias" bits...there's no doubt a basis in fact for that claim(also, a note to Thoughtstipated--I think you want the word "unequivocal" rather than "equivocal" in the sentence "There is absolutely no equivocal enforcement on game rules. "), but it's hard to verify, and it read like a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact.

Traumerei 00:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC) One more note--I'm not planning to edit this article further today since I have to head out, but I'll take a look at the state of the article tomorrow and see if my (and Atari2600Tim's) concerns have been addressed. Thoughtstipated, I will further note that any specifics about the so-called "donation deals" (as in the ratio of "gold" to USD) will be quickly obsolete, and will also not be meaningful to casual readers of this article. Traumerei 00:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "unequivocal" vs. "equivocal"

You are correct! the correct word to have used is in fact unequivocal, not equivocal. I would agree that is an appropriate change. This is not really a matter of opinion, as I know from my own personal experiences, playing multiple characters on different IPs that I have been treated differently by the exact same administrator for similar incidences purely based on the fact that one character (or rather IP address) was better known than the other. I know other people who could confirm this. I could even go as far to explain why if needed, however it does not fit the protocol of this article.

Thoughtstipated 02:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donation deal ratios

I guess I would have to agree that it is possible this information is prone to changing overnight but is also why I made the statement to cover the realistic broadness of the reality of it all.

I guess what I am somewhat struggling to convey and put into perspective is the amount of work it takes for someone in order to raise the amount needed to do a donation deal and not compare it to anything which could be interpreted as possibly biased or uncalled for. If I could post what I really thought as opposed to facts I would say someone would have a better chance of raising money for donations by working in a Chinese sweat shop, however we both know this is unacceptable.

The one thing that I admire about the Wiki is that it allows people to update information at any given time, so if what I posted were to in fact become untrue, someone else could just as easily modify the article to reflect the present.

Thoughtstipated 02:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting Medievia

I would like to rewrite and expand this article to offer a broader definition of the game by adding more sections associated with game play and explanations thereof. Medievia is an extremely large and complex game. In order to convey the extent of it's diversity and expansiveness, more information is needed for one to truly understand just how complex this game is. This rewrite would significantly add to the size of the article because of the number of points which should be made.

  • These modifications I am in the process of writing include a more in-depth perspective.
  • This information is definitely content specific, but does not contain spoiler-specific material.
  • In particular, this would include an expansion of terms already used in the article's current state.
  • More specifically, these expansions on internal definitions would include (but may not be limited to):
  • Classes
  • Trading
  • Clans/Towns
  • Dungeon Master
  • MOB Factions
  • Ships
  • Catacombs
  • Ranking System
  • Donations
  • Catastrophes
  • Weather
  • Fae

To satisfy the concerns of previous editors of this article, content pertaining to the origins of Medievia's code base and for-profit status would be included to avoid any content disputes.

Thoughtstipated 13:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there'd be a bit of disagreement on describing it as very complex and expansive; is there anything particularly unique worth mentioning, so that it won't be a laundry list that drowns out what the MUD is most known for? There have been concerns regarding the tone of the article for quite some time, and it's my understanding that leaving out common MUD features is part of why the current state of the article isn't near as bad as it could be. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
To make this a bit easier to follow, here's the response from below copied to here directly after my message it was responding to: To respond more directly to Atari2600tim's latest concerns... ...My intent is to focus on more noteworthy game features in a clear and better organized manner. Basically my concern is how much of those things above do you feel are noteworthy? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I don't think there's justification to have details about all the classes and how clans and ships work, trading, and things like that. Those are all pretty common on MUDs and as far as I am aware, Medievia likely is not especially unique in regards to all of those things listed above. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had time to revisit this article...I still have some concerns about the changes made by Thoughtstipated previously (if you have the time, Thoughtstipated, you should consider *merging* your notes on costs of donation items etc. to the previous text whose tone, IMO was more appropriate to that of an encyclopedia). I am definitely not in favor having this article become some sort of long, in-depth summary of MUD features. If the reader wants such information, there are links to the MUD's website below the article, which will probably contain more information, as is appropriate. The article already reads partially like an advertisement for this MUD. You may want to create a new article called "medievia features" or some such (and if you do so, you should excise some of the details in this article, and merely mention them by name, linking to the features article), but I don't think adding the details you mentioned to the top level article is justified. Traumerei 15:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Regardless, this is a public encyclopedia and allows for information to be freely posted within it regarding virtually any given subject. Even if you could find similar information elsewhere, it is a matter of being able to find pertinent and centralized information on a subject. It is not the length of the article that matters, it is the content within and if I can centralize information on a site like this, I believe it is within the best interests of the community to do so. Adding a feature list and brief summaries of each subject within allows a full and clear view of facts and aspects surrounding game (as descriptive as it may be). I might add, it is also not advertising to do so when worded in a way which only states fact. My upcoming changes to the article will be changes of convenience so that people don't need to go to several different sites (or play the game) in order to get what I believe to be the whole picture. I don't understand why you (Traumerei) want to keep the article so short and non-descript. This is an encyclopedia and people want elaborate and useful information, the article in it's current state is very poorly written and is neither elaborate or very useful.

Thoughtstipated 16:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • To respond more directly to Atari2600tim's latest concerns, my proposed changes have very little to do with the past or existing 'laundry' which seem to be quite central to the current article. My intent is to focus on more noteworthy game features in a clear and better organized manner. I will however keep information regarding code authorship, rules and for-profit statements as they are worth mentioning. You will see with the rewritten version that it will decentralize the old concerns and focus on new and uncontroversial material. Overall, the article will dramatically increase in size, but as I stated in a previous response; the game is large and complex, so in order to rationally define Medievia, it will require a somewhat large (but ironically not complex) article. Thoughtstipated 20:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thoughtstipated, you have not commented on my suggestion that you add this new information in an article titled "Medievia features", and linking to that from this article. That will allow you to expound on your topics to your heart's content, without detracting from the focus of this article. I will also note that thus far, you have not actually incorporated a single suggestion from either Atari2600Tim or myself (except perhaps for the spelling correction)... Traumerei 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I made my response when I continued to insist that my new article will include game features within the article. Features are in fact part of the game itself and necessary to define the largeness and complexity of it. I've made myself quite clear about pertinent and centralized information. There is absolutely no reason to create a secondary page for game features. If this is your logic behind the current article or my intentions to rewrite it, perhaps you should consider making a separate page for Medievia Controversy, which seems to be your motive. The version of the article that you seem to favor is centralized around a one-sided, stalemated debate about code theft which is over 10 years old. That information although correct and fits within helping define Medievia does not encompass the the entirety of the game. You want to focus so much on tiny parts of the article which are trivial and on the verge of bias.
  • There are 2 reasons I have not immediately addressed concerns.
  1. Traumerei: Your concerns want to limit viable information I want to add to the article, therefore I am disregarding most of your concerns on the basis you seem to want to hide information and intensify the light put on more negative aspects rather than the whole picture.
  2. A few of Atart2600tim's concerns are being addressed as I am in the process of rewriting the article. I am working on this locally because it is quite expansive and I would rather repost the article all at once as opposed to posting pieces one at a time. Take into consideration, I do not always have the time to work on this. Changing small parts of the existing article is irrelevant since I have stated I will be rewriting the whole article.
  • I have said it before and will say it again. I understand you may not like all the aspects of what I am about to post (or have posted), however this is an open project and if you don't like certain parts of it for valid reasons, you are entitled to altar them individually (not make wholesale reverts), so they better convey all definitive aspects of the game which make it unique or better help users understand terminology used within the game.
  • Remember Traumerei: You were the one who began the wholesale revert wars. You could have easily made minor modifications rather than make a complete reversion. I will ask you once again: Once I rewrite this article, please do not revert to a previous version solely on the basis that you don't agree with certain parts. I am quite certain at least most of the upcoming changes are warranted, and contain verifiable information. If you disagree with parts, then I ask you modify each point individually, in a point-by-point case should we need discussion on them.

Thoughtstipated 03:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • To Thoughtstipated: In the ultimate analysis, two wikipedia users (myself and Atari2600Tim) who have maintained this article for quite some time have disagreed with most of your changes (see Atari2600Tim's points from 13 November, which basically disagree with *all* your changes in your last edit)...you have shown no intention of reaching a consensus with either of us about the issues we've raised. Your standard for verifiable information is clearly at variance with our standards. Both Atari2600Tim and I have commented that the article would lose focus if it were a laundry list of MUD features--I have seen nothing from you to reassure us to the contrary. This article has been "completely rewritten" in the past by users from this MUD's IP, basically making it a word for word copy of the game's description on its website. Given your stated biases (calling the code provenance discussion a "smear campaign" is laughable, especially since it has implications for the whole open source community), I'm not at all confident that this is not an attempt to something similar. Also, I will note that I made several attempts to incorporate your changes when making my edits during the "revert wars", which you completely ignored and reverted to your version. You have never responded to my suggestion that you merge your changes about the cost of so-called donation items and such to the previous paragraph on such items, which I am going to do right now. This is a consensus project, and unless you reach consensus with other users who have an interest in this article, you're not going to succeed in pushing your individual viewpoint as you seem intent on doing, especially since you seem to think the existing article has no merit at all given your stated intention of rewriting it in full, unilaterally. I'm sure you have some useful information to add, but stating that you're going to do a complete rewrite (and your own admonition should apply...if you disagree with parts of this article, rewrite those parts and be aware that we may rewrite them back, merging those changes that we feel are useful).

Traumerei 05:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done some rewriting of the "donation" item section, and have added some information based on the game's website about the types of items. Looking at the description of the game in the (newly retitled) "In-game environment" section, I think that it could use some re-organization by way of more bullet points. Since Thoughtstipated has seen fit to add the notability tag to this article, I commend this paragraph from User:Uncle G/On notability (referenced from Wikipedia:Notability) to his/her attention:

When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit. If you don't have such sources, don't write.

Some of this may not apply to parts of a relatively obscure topic such as this, but it should certainly be kept in mind. I will also note consensus, and this paragraph:

Insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors, has been adjudged a violation of consensus due to its putting undue weight on a topic.

Traumerei 06:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit alarmed at Once I rewrite this article, please do not revert to a previous version solely on the basis that you don't agree with certain parts. I am quite certain at least most of the upcoming changes are warranted, and contain verifiable information. If you disagree with parts, then I ask you modify each point individually, in a point-by-point case should we need discussion on them. If you're planning to do multiple unfavorable changes, it'd be pretty unreasonable to expect them all to be addressed individually by other editors when you yourself didn't bother to gain consensus on any of them individually. From when I've seen other people on other articles do a massive rewrite in one edit, it's often with bad intentions, and with the hopes that enough will slip by that everyone'll just give up after an endless debate on whatever was the first thing they pointed out. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 17:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A FINAL message to Traumerei

There are a number of points I'd like to make to Traumerei before I completely cut off any discussion with him regarding this article. "You" is intended to address Traumerei.

I am fed up with butting heads with you over the code theft and other irrelevant issues. I am hereby stating my reasons as to why I am choosing to end all discussion with you. If you continue to mass-revert any changes that I myself, or anyone else chooses to make, I will ask for a committee resolution to this article, I will cite the below references to your obvious bias toward criticism and if needed I will cite more.

1. I would like to point out Traumerei, that in the first section titled Consideration for locking? was posted by you, and you explicitly state in one part, "...replaced the article with an advertisement for the game, with no reference to any criticism."

  • Let me remind you that Wikipedia is not a review site where criticism is the be-all and end-all of fact. In fact criticism within an article is not good form and generally frowned upon. I do not agree that an advertisement is any more acceptable. However, I went through past versions of the article, and the way in which a previous editor had written the article does in fact seem to come from an advertising POV, but I will admit they stated many facts even if it could have been written a little better.

2. In paragraph 2, of Discussion over article format, You specifically tell someone who was at least trying to offer a better perspective, that you prefer your own views to theirs citing that the matters concerning code theft should take precedence over any kind of other relevant information to the game.

3. Tom Blackstone even makes the point that you prefer criticism to actual fact (in paragraph 4). It is actually noted several times. In relation to paragraph 4, you say right out that just because the Medievia article was originally written to promote the code theft issue warrants a reason to revert it to a state which shows your very little concern for facts and information. You continually place importance on the issue of code theft when in fact (even though I may not disagree with you); it is still a matter of little relevance when you look at the wide scope of things.

4. You go on to say, "The medievia entry was started to catalog the controversy rather than present trivia about the MUD".

  • Once again, it is my understanding that Wikipedia exists in order to (or at least attempt) educate people about subjects in a manner which enlightens people on as many true facts concerning the subject matter as possible. Centralization of criticism is not an acceptable stance, despite the original intent of an article. If you started or largely contributed an article, which at some point matter within the article becomes obsolete or does not deserve as much recognition, it is well within any editor's rights to rectify the inaccuracy.

5. So far I am not even through the first quarter of the discussion articles, and it's the same mess over and over.

6. I am going over each of the comments posted after each edit, and Traumerei, I highly suggest you lay your code theft issue to rest. I will not argue that there is some validity to your excessive persistency, and it does in fact warrant some kind of recognition, but I absolutely refuse to allow you to continuously control this article on the basis of your claims.

Thoughtstipated 10:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty uncivil, you don't have to socialize with him or anything, but do make an effort here on the talk page to gain consensus from everyone who watches this article before changing things, especially if you plan to do a major overhaul. It's unreasonable to demand everyone to fix your problems separately if you yourself do multiple things in one edit... if someone makes 10 changes and it's not easy to pick out which are good, but many are definitely bad, I'm just gonna undo the whole thing and not pick them out, and I'd expect others to do the same. As far as the civility thing goes, what works pretty well for me is to pretend that every input that someone has is independant from the others; this way I can more easily avoid ad hominem arguments and things like that. This also helps in following some of the Wikipedia policies. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the 'Centralization of criticism is not an acceptable stance' part... that can be solved by removing the part about admins being unfair, which was very recently added, and everyone who's written here has opposed it so far. Also, in the controversy section... since there's no value or moral positions taken, and just a list of facts, I don't understand how concerns about criticism is in any way related to the controversy section of the article (it does not appear to be criticism?), so please elaborate. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 19:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On criticism, NPOV, and mass rewrites

Thoughtstipated, I'm afraid almost all of your statements (or perhaps "rant" would be a more apposite term) are incorrect, either wholly or in part.

1. I'm not certain where you get the idea that criticism is inappropriate in an article. I suggest you read Wikipedia's definition of a neutral point of view and objectivity. One of the reasons for this MUD's notability within the MUD community (see long discussions on Usenet, for instance, as well as well documented source code excerpts) and the open source community is this issue. The discussion of the license violation is written with a view towards objectivity, and contains a counter-claim, and reams of evidence/citations. I find your statements puzzling, especially in light of your allegations of administrator bias and such, which are unsupported (and they still stand, despite both mine and Atari2600Tim's statement that they are not notable). Note that two maintainers of this article (myself and Atari2600Tim) have both commented on this issue extensively recently, and there is a large body of comment about the license violation issue on the discussion page as well as the edit history of the article from a great many other editors. That issue is well-cited and verifiable, and has been the subject of vandalism in the past from the game administrators (self-editing).

2. You mischaracterize the (civil, rational) discussion between TomBlackstone and myself. Unlike some, he was well-aware of Wikipedia's policies on consensus and compromise, and due to our joint efforts, this article was significantly improved.

3. The fact remains that we have two longstanding editors here whose views are considerably at variance with yours, and your stated intent to entirely rewrite (and presumably whitewash, since you seem to think balanced criticism is inappropriate) an article with many contributors over the past couple of years is disturbing, and is at variance with established wikipedia policy. As I've noted above, you also seem to be a user whose account was created very recently, and seemingly with the sole purpose of rewriting this article. This also raises a red flag.

4. I suggest that you read WP:CIVIL.

5. Any mass deletion of existing material would be inappropriate. Once again, I suggest reading my point above regarding consensus and compromise. If you genuinely want to re-organize the section on game info, with a view towards readability (I'm afraid your previous edits were definitively lacking in the formal tone necessary for an article), I welcome the attempt.

6. Furthermore, your suggestion (perhaps intended as a "threat"?) of requesting binding arbitration is a welcome one. If your "rewrite" includes mass deletion of existing material that has been arrived at through consensus and compromise over the years by many editors, over the objections of two longstanding editors (myself and Atari2600Tim), that will probably be the appropriate process. Traumerei 16:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tag for notability of article

On Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Medievia virtually all of the people in favor of this article even existing seemed to be saying that they felt it was noteworthy primarily because of the blatant violation of the applicable licenses. Is anyone feeling that there isn't enough information in the 'controversy' section of this article and that it needs to be expanded some? --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 18:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Tim: yes I think it could use some enhancement (perhaps alluding to topics covered in the websites referred to about the license violation) in terms of describing the issues impact on the open source MUD codebases, and the precedent it sets in removing an incentive to release source code. But I'm not knowledgable enough about that aspect of the subject to contribute. And I do think that the description of the game lacks coherency (and I also think that the article does deserve such a description as long as it satisfies notability), but if past performance is an indicator, I'm not certain that user Thoughtstipated is the person to rewrite that section (his statements point to his "complete rewrite" as being a whitewash/advertisement, and probably not one conformant to NPOV, formal tone, and verifiability); however, we should of course judge his edit on its own merits. (Also, as I'm sure everyone is aware, Wikipedia does have size and readability criteria too). If you're knowledgable about notable/unique details of the game or other aspects of the code provenance issue (especially as it stands currently, which would satisfy the notability criterion), or know of a person or source that can be regarded as an authoritative and objective, please add to the article :-) I can comment on some details, but I don't think I quite fit the "authoritative" criterion (you seem to have contributed to several topical MUD/text game related articles, so you're probably more so than I am). Thanks! Traumerei 18:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested additions

There are many more nuances to this game and features of the game that distinguish it from other muds. I think more detail could be described to these areas. Balanced criticism: As far as the code-theft issue goes there is huge room for expansion on this part. Perhaps an official statement from the owner of the game balanced with a compilation of the accusations cited from the various websites devoted to the matter. Also, since both of these sides are obviously biased a good amount of discussion of the actual impact of either truth is in order. Also, discussion of similar instances of code being used for the base of one version of a software and when (according to experts in the open source community) that code becomes a separate unique entity (if at all)

Wilderop 01:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC).

Unfortunately Wilderop, although it would be nice to get an official statement from the admin regarding code theft, Krause (aka Vryce), has long been in a no-comment state about this issue. This controversy began over 10 years ago, and for the most part is irrelevant to the game, however is a fact which warrants some recognition; and why I included a partial mention of it within the article. I think it is more important to mention other relevant facts about the game which are not made clear in previous versions. If anyone would like to expand on it, I feel they should so do, however I feel the link which points to the unofficial Myspace Account is a significant enough resource to describe the fact that the code theft issue is more the part of a larger smear campaign.Thoughtstipated 03:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the code-theft issue

There are plenty of external sources of information listed as to people's views on the severity and/or overall explanation of the code-theft issue in the Opinion Pages link, which is referenced within the document.Thoughtstipated 03:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • There is also significant proof that the mention of code theft is part of an overall smear campaign. If you feel that this area should be expanded more, by all means add to it if it suits your fancy.Thoughtstipated 03:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write comments

Kudos to the rewrite! I have visited this article before and always thought it was lacking in information and deserved a rewrite which I was to lazy to do. I like how this version covers more information about in-game elements and takes the focus off the code theft issue. I have played Medievia since Medievia III, and never cared much about where the code came from, only that it was a fun and interesting game to play.Xenosorcio 01:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The new code theft section no longer explains the licensing issue, contains POV language it can't have ('smear campaign', etc), and repeats an unverifiable claim 'It has been rewritten to the degree which it is no longer the original code' as fact without setting it up as one of Kruse's claims as the old version did. I'm also thinking that the large number of section breaks (and some very short sections) don't do much for the flow of the article. The table of contents shouldn't be scrolling people's browsers. It would have been a better idea to put these sections into the older article one at a time, I think. Ehheh 01:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your input. I know that the TOC is long, but the game is large and has many points which warrant different sections to explain it's diverse nature and define terms found within the game.Thoughtstipated (Talk / Contributions) 12:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for directing me to this page Lenshek, err I guess Thoughtstipated. I have researched some of the changes made to this article in the past. I think it might be a little long, however it seems to offer a good description of the game and what it's all about.

I have played Medievia for many years and actually knew nothing about the issue of code theft on behalf of the game creators. I was a little surprised to learn about it, but don't really think it's that big of a deal. When I compare the current revision of this article to the last, it seems that this version offers a much better description of the game and helps new people who are interested in the game understand terminology within the game. It is very expansive and helpful to understanding more about the game.Euk 02:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of progress

Despite all of the recent efforts, almost none of the problems discussed here on the talk page have been resolved, and some that WERE resolved got re-introduced. --67.20.36.2 02:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add some tags onto it to encourage some uninvolved people to improve the article. The smear campaign is unnotable, and seems to only be there to make it seem as if that's the main purpose for people to observe the code theft. The title "Medievia was derived from Merc/DikuMUD" should have a reliable source in order for it to use "was" or any past-tense words. The phrase "Many programs which are valid C are also valid C++" should be reworded to reflect the fact that in fact almost all C is also valid C++, and that very little is not. Compiling for a 64 bit processor requires 0 changes unless you decide to utilize some of the added features, it certainly doesn't require even minor rewrites. --67.20.36.2 02:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The particular section lists what has been claimed in rebuttal to the code theft charge. That the claims regarding the significance of C to C++ translation and 64 bit conversion seem spurious, false or dubious to C/C++ programmers are acknowledged. That the Medievia web page makes blatantly false statements about dates, the origination of other muds, and the significance of the above I also acknowledge. I don't believe the article section is about uncovering the truth of their claims. The only fact necessary to presenting that viewpoint is that they've claimed it. Also presenting a lengthy history of public proclamations and announcements by the games principals which contradict their own official web history page is beyond the scope, I think, of what most people care about. Jlambert 07:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts on the recent re-write

I notice that the discussion page has recently fallen victim to what can only be described as astroturfing. I will also note that "Soleille" (who recently edited the page) is an alias that matches one of this game's administrator's handles (the MUD's administrators have almost certainly vandalized this article in the past--see the edit of 21 April 2005 (which replaced the article with a blatant advertisement), which originated from an IP within Medievia's IP allocation block for an example); however, the edit was minor, and doesn't fall under the purview of Wikipedia's self-editing policy. However, I do encourage wikipedians to monitor this article for transgressions of that policy.

Getting back to "Thoughtstipated's" rewrite:

  • The good: Information on the game is better organized and more structured than it was previously, and more information has been added (and while I think those sections have become a tad bloated, especially due to content that doesn't seem notable, it's not out of bounds). This is a welcome addition--I do suggest that this information be corroborated by other people definitively knowledgable about the game (from what I know, information pertaining to gameplay seems reasonable, with the caveats below).
  • The bad: There are now a number of POV and non-verifiable statements (both positive and negative) in the article. Some of these appear to have been included despite the stated objections of editors on the discussion page.

1. "Medievia boasts itself as being the largest and best game on the internet you can play for free." This has a strong advertising flavor (despite the "boast" qualifier)--besides, Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of recording boasts (and this statement is also quite unverifiable, and almost certainly untrue). Also, the attempt to connect the game to MMORPGs lacks merit (especially when it's in the headline)--from a casual inspection, few or none of the articles about other MUDs make this claim (and a game with 200-300 players at most, on a single server, cannot claim to be "massive"--MUDs are precursors to MMORPGS at best).

2. There are a few POV statements such as "The DM is a sophisticated computer controlled entity which monitors each player's gameplay experience." "Sophisticated" is a value judgment, and it doesn't sound like anything more than a state machine--besides, given that Medievia is closed source, none of the internal workings of the game can be described with any reasonable accuracy. I plan to remove the "sophisticated" label, but someone who is more knowledgable about that aspect of the game should look at it.

3. "The game has been around since the early 1990s yet has never had official discussion forums relating to game strategy or development as the system administrators feel this threatens the game's integrity." As Atari2600Tim noted above, this should be sourced (when it comes to the motivation), or at least reworded.

4. The "donation" item bits need rework. The previous section on so-called "donation" items (titled more accurately as "purchase of in-game items"--the term "donation" items (as Atari2600Tim notes above) is essentially a bit of propaganda along the lines of Newspeak, and an attempt to disguise the fact that these are purchased items having nothing to do with voluntary donations) was more informative and better-worded, and was more in line with the formal tone requirement. I plan to restore the deleted content.

5. As I had anticipated, Thoughtstipated attempted to whitewash the section on the Diku codebase license violation and removed the existing, well-sourced, and extensively discussed section contributed to by multiple editors over the years. Also, to quote Atari2600Tim above, "On Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Medievia virtually all of the people in favor of this article even existing seemed to be saying that they felt it was noteworthy primarily because of the blatant violation of the applicable licenses."--this is also very evident in the history of the article, and in this discussion page. Removal of this section, despite prior multiple requests not to do so, by a new user who seems to have signed on solely to edit this article was a grave violation of Wikipedia's policies on consensus. Thank you, Jlambert for restoring it. My edit of 16 November included some more information (regarding the relevance to open source MUD codebase efforts) which I will re-merge.

6. I agree with the anonymous user's comment above regarding the subtitles of the code provenance discussion--it was initially titled "The claim" (which made perfect sense under the larger subsection heading), and I subsequently attempted to change it to "Evidence supporting a Diku MUD license violation" (or something like that), but both of those were summarily deleted/renamed by Thoughtstipated (without discussion) in favor of "Medievia was based on Diku" (which even the game administrators agree was true at its inception...the controversy surrounds the practice of making money off an open source codebase in violation of its license, which the preponderance of evidence indicates that Medievia has been doing for the past ten years). Regardless, it is not an informative section title. I also definitely agree that uninvolved users (although, given the "astroturfing" phenomenon, it will be rather challenging to verify this) should offer opinions on the article.

Traumerei 01:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed preface paragraph

I think the rewrite notice and request not to change it from the rewritten version is uncalled for. It seems intended to discourage editors from editing the article and totally goes against WP:OWN and other related policies. Its purpose also seems negated by the templates (the templates are actually better because it puts the article into appropriate categories, so that third parties can have their attention drawn to it), so I'm going to move it here to the talk page. The list of templates doesn't really cover everything, feel free to add whatever's appropriate and mention why here on the talk page. As an aside, I don't think any effort was made to actually reach any consensus, or else the changes would have been proposed here rather than put straight into the article with a request not to undo it. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 03:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is what I am removing from the article:

This article has recently been rewritten and requires more comments on it's current state
to reach a viable consensus. Because of the nature of the rewrite, it is requested that
users refrain from making major edits to this article until more comments have been
received. The article's history may be found here. Please post your comments, suggestions
and criticism on the discussion page regarding this rewrite.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/d/Talk%7EMedievia_a12b.html"