Talk:Derek Smart/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Pruning External links 2 "With prejudice" 3 Desktop Commander video 4 POV Pushing 5 New Improved Werewolves' Site 6 Ugh 7 More format changes 8 Rewrite 9 Aggregate scores again 10 Future Works 11 Rewrite has been merged in 12 Present tense/Future Proofing 13 Hidden PhD Section 14 Citation of Usenet archives 15 Derek Smart (Game Developer) same as Derek Smart (Usenet Poster/Flamer) 16 3000ad and Smart's Home Office 17 Ars technica link 18 RFc on Derek Smart 19 Request for Comment: Derek Smart page 20 Request For Page Protection 21 Usenet posts inherently unreliable 22 Coke Machine alleged incident not subsequent release 23 The discussion isn't over (Re:Usenet) 24 unecessary reverts 25 My last edit's explanation was truncated... 26 RFC Filed 27 Commentary and Criticism of Smart 28 Marriages and Divorces 29 Informal Mediation on this article 30 Removals of talk page comments 31 Article reported on WP:BLP noticeboard 32 Request for Arbitration filed on Derek Smart 33 SEC filing interpretation 34 BLP applies beyond the subject of the article 35 Arbitration 36 Arbitration Workshop 37 Edits per article

[edit] Pruning External links

I removed three links from the External links section and the edit has been reverted. The three links I propose we remove are:

• Derek Smart appointed to the board of the South Florida IGDA chapter
• Derek Smart talks about his 2005 release at IGDA meet
• 3000AD announces several XB360 games in development

I propose removing them as they simply do not belong in the External links section. I assert that these links should be used as references if they provide useful information. The External links guideline says that we should avoid "[linking to] any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article." These links fail that test and thus should not be in this section.

WarhawkSP reverted my edit with the assertion that "the links are perfectly fine since this is WP:BLP article." Wikipedia's policies regarding biographies of living persons play no role in this issue. The links could very well be used as references and pass WP:BLP with flying colors; they are simply not appropriate for the External links section. He or she also requested that I (and presumably anyone else) "please...not make such changes without consensus." I assert that Wikipedia encourages editors to act with boldness and that the disagreement of one or two single-purpose editors who appear to own the article is insufficient reason to revert non-controversial edits clearly in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --ElKevbo 22:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes sense for the IGDA links to be turned into references. Just add a line to the chronological history that basically says, "He was named to the IGDA." then use one or both of the links as references. Problem solved.

True, but if you look at other Wiki pages, the way they are entered is perfectly fine. I simply do not know why people find the need to keep tinkering with this Wiki. WarHawkSP 13:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Also true, but I think this is a case where both sides have valid points, and therefore it's important to achieve some element of consensus. The IGDA links could just as easily be external links or references, but the first "important point to remember" in the External links guideline states that "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." I interpret this to say that if the link in question could work as both an external link and a reference, the latter state would be the preferred one. 70.137.136.204 21:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I'd appreciate if you could give a few examples of Featured Articles that contain similar links in the External Links section. In general, I don't think that "other articles do it" is at all valid unless those other articles have somehow been highlighted as exemplary and in compliance with nearly all Wikipedia guidlines and policies. Second, I don't really care for your characterization of other editors' work on this article as "tinkering." It has a derogatory connotation and implies that those edits are not helpful or welcome. To the contrary, we should welcome others to edit this article and continue working to improve it. --ElKevbo 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As for the final link, while it might be appropriate to include something mentioning future works, the information has to be up-to-date. The link in question was written back in January, and mentions two games, "Hostile Intent" and "Knightblade". However, a quick search of four popular gaming websites comes up virtually empty. Gamespot only lists one article for Hostile Intent, dating back to October 2004. Knightblade also has only one press release, dating back to March 2004. Gamespy lists both of the games as cancelled. What's the point in having a link to a press release about games that are cancelled? 70.137.136.204 06:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The games are not canceled. Just because there are no references on websites does not make any difference. Besides, as a developer, I know that games can take upwards of two to five years to develop. I just checked the 3000AD web page and the games are not in their games section because they only list released games. However if you check their forums, they have sections for those games. Which means that they are very much in development. WarHawkSP 13:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right: the BC3K website apparently does have forums for both games. However, both forums only have one thread, which basically states the same information that's given in the external link. In addition, there are two more forums, for two other games that were announced after the link in question. Therefore, the link is out of date and should be removed.

But even if it was replaced with a new link touting all four games, what's to stop that link from becoming obsolete in the near future? For example, the second-to-last press release on the BC3K website, written in May, announced that an expansion called "A World Apart 2" was going to be created. Three weeks later, they put out another press release saying it's been cancelled. This isn't meant to rip on them, but rather to show that upcoming games can become cancelled pretty quickly. It happens all the time.

I figure there are two options when discussing Smart's future work: removing the link in question, or replacing it with a version that is more up-to-date. I believe the former solution more appropriate for three reasons. First, I can't find any example of press releases on future works of other game developers described through external links. Secondly, there's already an external link to the BC3K website, so people should easily be able to find info on Smart's future work by using that link. Finally, and most importantly, it removes the burden of repeatedly updating the page to reflect any changes. And after reading this talk page yesterday afternoon, I think everyone would agree that any changes would undoubtedly result in edit wars. 70.137.136.204 21:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The general principle is that we should avoid statements that will date quickly. If the links specifically concern BC3K then at best they should be in that article. But I think the same discussion would (and should) be held there and I would also support removing them for the same reasons stated here. --ElKevbo 23:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the three links. It's been over a week since the question has posed, and while WarHawkSP brought up an initial argument, he hasn't responded to the statements ElKevbo and I have given above. The reason for this can't be because he hasn't spent time on Wikipedia, because his list of contibutions shows he has made three edits to this article (or pages relating to the article) over the past week. Since no other arguments have been made, I'll assume that we've reached some level of consensus. 70.137.136.204 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your action. Apart from that, there is no precedent that says links have to be removed in fact this being a WP:BLP article, the links were about Smarts industry activities similar to his game development. Being on the board of a local IGDA chapter is quite significant for a game developer. WarHawkSP 18:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links. If they're important in Smart's life, then write them into the article use the links as references. They are simply inappropriate in the External links sections. BLP has nothing to do with this. --ElKevbo 18:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Before things get confusing, I'm the one who's been discussing the external link situation anonymously for the past ten days. After seeing a few additional pages that I could improve, I decided to register and become a full-fledged Wikipedian.

WarhawkSP, while I agree that I should have transformed the links into references, I do not understand why you have not responded to my comments from a week ago. I feel that I've given a valid reason as to why the IGDA links should be references. Wikipedia's guideline for external links indicates that if the link is appropriate as a external link and a reference, then the latter state is preferable because the number of external links should be kept to a minimum. I have no problem with the content of the links themselves, but the content of the page would be improved if they were made into references, and a phrase such as "Smart was named to the IGDA chapter in the year XXXX..." was added to the bio.

I believe my reasons for deleting the link dealing with upcoming games are even more valid. There's no other example of a link such as this used on any other game developer's Wiki page, there's already a link to the BC3K website through which one can find the same info, and most importantly, the info is either out-of-date or could become so very quickly. I feel that if you want everyone to be satisfied with these links in their present form, you're going to have to address all of these points.

One last point before I go: I looked at the BC3K forums this evening before making this post. When I last posted on this topic ten days ago, I noted that there were four forums for upcoming games, and that two of them were for "Knightblade" and "Hostile Intent", the games announced in one of the links in question. I also stated that each of the forums had only one thread and had not been used in months. When I went there tonight, three of those forums were gone, including those for the aforementioned games. The fact that they've been removed indicates to me that the games are no longer under development, and therefore the link in question is obsolete and should not be used. The fact that the removal of the forums occurred so soon after I pointed the fact out...well, I'll leave that open to speculation. Cardinal2 03:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if we're looking at the same site, but those games are still there. I assume that we're still talking about Hostile Intent and KnightBlade, his XB360 games? Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 11:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good comments. I did what you suggested with his appointment to the Miami IGDA board. And I second your opinion on the future game announcements. These may or may not come to pass, but the possibility of them actually materializing appears to be dubious (e.g. "Cancelled" mention on one site and your comment). - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What proof do you have of its dubiousness? And what site do you see "Cancelled" mentioned for any of those two games? Please cite your sources instead of making unfounded blanket statements. I just checked Google and found no mention of either of those titles being cancelled. Every game on his site has been released thus far and I don't see where Smart has cancelled any games. I only found one instance where Battlecruiser Generations was renamed to Universal Combat. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 11:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

None now. The comment above (by 70.137.136.204) about both being marked as "cancelled" on GameSpy was true; I checked them shortly afterwards. But I realize that this is just hearsay. The site now has them set for a Q1/2008 release (HI-P and KB-LOD). I will re-establish the link. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a [WP:BLP]] article and as WarHawkSP stated, the links are relevant to his work. This is no different than someone trying to have the article deleted. This is now just subversive vandalism if you ask me. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 20:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "With prejudice"

I looked in the citation for the 3000AD vs. DreamCatcher injunction hearing and I see no mention of the judgment being delivered "with prejudice". Is this a correct statement? - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Most cases when dismissed are dismissed with or without prejudice. If you read the full ruling, one can conclude that it was dismissed as such because the judge clearly stated that the 3000AD lawsuit could go forward because while 3000AD failed to show intent (on Dreamcatchers part), they could still sue for performance since DC claimed that the game would still make money. The fact that they settled it out of court and Smart game them rights (later revoked) to his UCAWA title, leads me to believe that the original matter was settled (out of court) to his satisfaction. Anyway Supreme Cmdr has since corrected the statement it looks like. WarHawkSP 18:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I could not find any such reference too. This is probably Supreme_cmdr trying to rewrite his version of history.Kerr avon 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you actually knew what the term means, you would not have made such a statement because it was simply one persons interpretation which could simply not lead to someone rewriting history. Dont you ever quit? WarHawkSP 18:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Though he thinks you're my sock puppet, you might want to just ignore Kerr and his silly remarks and edits. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 20:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desktop Commander video

This does not add anything to this article. If this is the work of Something Awful, we've discussed that before. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I do not agree with the general principle that information from Something Awful can not be of value but this particular item adds little to this article. If it were placed differently or given more context I might be willing to reconsider but I think it's unlikely to happen with this particular item. --ElKevbo 16:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It should come as no surprise that Kerr added the video. That video was created by SA as a parody and adds nothing to the article. Kerr of course already knew this, but chose to ignore it in order to further his agenda of tainting this Wiki with meaningless edits which usually get removed and discarded. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

We were discussing if somethingawful can be used as a reference, and nothing conclusive for or against it came out of the discussion. The sdame hapenned with regard to the werewolves link, nothing against external linking to it was conclusively discussed. There is a lot more topics to be discussed and a consensus to be arranged.Kerr avon 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The video is a parody from a source that fails WP:RS and has no basis for placement in a WP:BLP entry. WarHawkSP 18:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Pushing

WP:3RR states "Using sock puppets (multiple accounts owned by a single user) to avoid this limit is a violation of WP:SOCK" Bill Huffman 03:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOCK states "Dealing with violations

Accounts operating in violation of this policy should be blocked indefinitely; the main account may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. Non-administrators may list the accounts at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as befits the case."

P.S. I understand that this quote from official WP policy is not directly associated with the article. However, I believe that it may have something to do with the edit war associated with the improvement of this article so please don't delete it. This is a reasonable topic for a talk page note. I would also like to remind the article editors that this is not Usenet and POV pushing is frowned upon when it is done in a disruptive manner. For example, when an editor deletes a talk page note just because they don't like it then it might be considered disruptive POV Pushing. Please try to play nice with others and it will make everyone more productive. Thank you, Bill Huffman 13:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you Bill Huffman supporters whose sole purpose is to taint Smart's Wiki, I have reported the matter and have once again removed it. One of you started a similar topic attacking me and it was summarily removed. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 20:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in the Derek Smart article. I have never edited the Derek Smart article. I'm even less interested in tainting it. I have not attacked anyone and your unprovoked accusation that I have attacked you could easily be construed as a personal attack against me. My interest in this matter is one, correcting your misstatements especially when they refer to me. Two, warning the people that are editors on Derek Smart that disruptive POV pushing is frowned upon and there are strict WP policies against disruptive POV pushing which on this article has escalated to the point of edit warring and even accounts being blocked. Please try to keep in mind that in the big scheme of things, the Derek Smart article is really a rather minor issue. It is not worth edit warring over (not as if any article is worth being disruptive over). Other people can have good ideas and we need to respect others and their opinions. I suggest that it might do you good if you editted some other articles on WP. Perhaps from that experience you will learn that the WP way of doing things can actually be very productive. There are over one and a half million English articles on WP! If you edited some other articles that you weren't so emotionally charged about you might learn that it is far better to cooperate on WP rather than edit warring. You will make yourself much more productive as well as your fellow editors. Thank you, Bill Huffman 22:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There's three points to be made from the fact that there's over 1.5 million English articles in WP. One, to emphasis the point that this one article doesn't have overwhelming importance in the big scheme of things. Two, the WP process works and works well in the vast majority of cases. Three, there has to be something else that you are interested in that you would enjoy contributing to and improving. Bill Huffman 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Improved Werewolves' Site

I've cleaned up some broken links and removed the page that gave my personal opinion as to the most likely explanation as to what makes Mr. Smart's personality so unique. I would like to thank Supreme_Cmdr's recent accusation that I violated WP:NPA as sufficiently motivating me to finally do the little house cleaning. Fortunately it was not sufficient enough to convince me to join his little edit war that he has going over the Derek Smart article though. Bill Huffman 02:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You are still trying to push your libelous site Bill. Nobody cares. Get it through your head once and for all. This is NOT the place for it. Go post about it on your own user page. The WPA I filed had nothing to do with what you were saying about Smart. It had everything to do with your attacking me. You are just once again doing exactly what you were doing on Usenet by injecting your stupid site into every discussion that you can. You won't get away with it here. All over the net, we know you. It seems to me that the description of a net stalker doesn't seem to have fazed you one bit because even to this very day, people know you for it. Here is one such recent post by Denny Atkin, a noted industry writer posting on site where Smart used to visit (and where I currently post btw) until you caused both you and him to be banned when he engaged you. Anyone who has any doubts about your motivation in this Wiki, only has to read that thread (which started over the weekend) as they compare you and Smart; as you being the primary stalker and person who tainted every single forum or group he was in. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 22:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see the warning that I placed on your User_talk:Supreme_Cmdr#Continued_Violations_of_NPA. I have said this multiple times after you made false statements that I had editted the Derek Smart article. I really don't care about the contents of the Derek Smart article. I took out that portion of the Werewolves site to make the site more palatable and to make you happy since that was the part that seemed to bother you and WarHawk the most. The Werewolves site is NOT libelous. Please discontinue your personal attacks against me by saying that it is libelous. Mr. Smart tells falsehoods about me and the Werewolves website. He says that I have fabricated lies about him and maliciously modified Usenet postings that are in the archives of the website. This is not true. If you ask Mr. Smart to provide evidence to substantiate his false accusations he'll probably tell you it's obvious or say everyone knows this, or he'll provide you so much information he knows that you will never read it all. What I used to do on-line was to say that if anyone can find one Usenet post there that I've maliciously edited or one lie there that I've told then I will happily remove the whole website and never put it up again. My offer still stands. Mr. Smart used to say that the truth was not a complete defense to libel. I still say that it is. My offer stands, so show a malicious edit or lie I told on the Werewolves site and I'll happily apologize and take the whole site down. If you can't then your unsupported assertions that the site is libelous is nothing more than a personal attack. Regards, Bill Huffman 02:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Bill Huffman 03:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Bill Huffman 19:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Supreme_Cmdr, here's the whole thread that you so kindly pointed out one post of. It points out things currently missing in the Derek Smart article. Here's some examples:

• Mr. Smart is notorious in the gaming industry for his online behavior as much if not more than for his game development.
• Mr. Smart's behavior of insulting customers is probably his best known bad behavior.
• Mr. Smart claiming an accredited PhD then admitting that it was unaccredited and finally admitting that his alma mater is listed in the degree mill chapter of John Bear's Guide is an important part of his reputation and part of what he is infamous for.
• Mr. Smart making legal threats is also part of what makes him infamous. (Although the current article makes this clear indirectly.)

Of course, I don't really care about what actually goes in the article but this was what I took from a reading of the whole thread that you so graciously pointed out to us. Have fun, Bill Huffman 04:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ugh

This is quite possibly the single poorest article in all of Wikipedia. I was pointed to it by a friend who himself was laughing at it. I have no idea who Derek Smart is, nor any desire to know more. The article awfully self centered, un-encyclopedic and seems to be written mostly by Derek Smart himself! I don't think I've ever seen such grandiose statements even on articles about people who deserve them. It seems the author is suffering from some delusions. I've spent the last hour laughing hysterically about how awful this entire article is, but I dare not get involved because I know any corrections made will just be undone by Smart's own accounts and obvious sock puppets, User:Supreme_Cmdr and User:WarkhawkSP. I have no interest in involving myself in this mess. Can an admin please step in and do something about this article? I would have supported the AfD had I known about it a few weeks ago, alas, an opportunity was missed. --Jeff 05:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it amusing that many of the references praising Mr. Smart have nothing to do with supporting the text that is supposedly associated with the reference. This is a classical Derek Smart technique. I must say that he is an amazingly smooth talker though. When he turns on the charm in a conversation he could sell snow to Eskimos. It's amazing to me that his writing is so illogical, poor, and transparent compared to his truly superior verbal skills. The difference between the Derek Smart article and a car accident that everyone has to rubber neck at is that with the Derek Smart article you can watch how the accident happened since it is all caught in the archives, mostly the archives on this page. IMHO, the archives are more entertaining than the article. Bill Huffman 10:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just following my own advice and reading the hilarious archives and can't believe this slip that SC made that appears to be ignored by everyone.

this page is an autobiography of a living person and as such as more stringenst guidelines on what can/cannot be added. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 11:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that I added the bolding. Here's the link to the above delightful quote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Derek_Smart/Archive2#Where_are_the_contents_that_should_be_in_this_page.3F Bill Huffman 18:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that I've uncovered evidence that Derek Smart uses the handle Supreme_Cmdr on the 3000AD (his company's) support forums. Please see the post here [1]. It is a post that affirmatively ties Derek Smart the person to the handle Supreme_Cmdr. This would apparently invalidate any claims to the contrary that Supreme_Cmdr is NOT Derek Smart and seem to affirm that Supreme_Cmdr and WarhawkSP are one Derek Smart, are sock puppets, and are single purpose accounts that are only used for the Derek Smart article. This situation is embarrassing to Wikipedia and I feel it should be dealt with in a timely manner. --Jeff 22:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

He does. So what? If you actually bothered to read the archives, you will see that this foolish notion has already been beaten to death and shot down. Even the admins have done a sock puppet check and found no evidence that neither myself nor WarHawkSP are Smart sock puppets. I opted to use the Supreme Cmdr handle back when this Wiki was first started. I offered to give it to Smart and create a new account, but he declined. This is all documented in the archives. So before you start throwing around unwarranted accusations like your pals here, the very least you could do is the research. While adhering to the rules of WP:CIVIL. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 22:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It might help if you would point to exactly where in the archives and the RFCU history this has been done. I'm not accusing you of lying - I'm being serious. If it comes up so often then it might be helpful to just put those links on your userpage and point people to it when these questions arise. Just a friendly suggestion.

It would also help me understand how an RFCU could possibly acquit anyone of being Smart; it could certainly provide some evidence that you and WarHawk may not be the same person (although such proof is not conclusive, of course) but I don't understand how it could go any further than that. I may be misunderstanding the RFCU process, though, and would appreciate clarification. --ElKevbo 22:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to look farther than my user talk page. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 23:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm not seeing it there. I see several sections discussing this issue but no link to an RFCU history or anything else definitive or "official." Maybe I'm just missing it...? --ElKevbo 23:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats your problem not mine. I never said anything about an RFCU and I have no idea what that is. There was a sockpet check done recently and I'm sure its in this talk page somewhere. Look it up. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for CheckUser. This is probably the sockpuppet check you're talking about. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And here is the case. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I still fail to see how those in any way prove that these, or any other, accounts are not linked to Smart. I'm not making the accusation but attempting to understand Warhawk's assertion that "admins have done a sock puppet check and found no evidence that neither myself nor WarHawkSP are Smart sock puppets" as the RFCU merely proves that those particular accounts are not linked by obvious means. It says nothing about Smart (nor could it). Am I still missing something? --ElKevbo 23:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you are exactly correct. That being said, whether or not Supreme_Cmdr, Warhawk, etc, are Derek Smart himself or the man on the moon is mostly irrelevant. What's relevant is the quality of their edits, which is mostly poor. Nandesuka 00:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Nandesuka. It is what it is. If I understand the process correctly, all it can do is prove that one user is using the same IP address as another and bolsters a sockpuppet case. It cannot prove that an account is not a sockpuppet. All we can do is live with our suspicions and edit the encyclopedia. Hopefully, it'll all eventually come out in the wash. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 06:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Supreme_Cmdr's inaccurate assertion that it has officially been proven that there is no evidence that Supreme Cmdr/WarhawkSP are Derek Smart sock puppets, it would seem that perhaps it does not matter that much. After all it seems pretty clear that SupremeCmdr and WarhawkSP are both WP:SPA. Wp:sp#Meatpuppets states

These accounts are often described as "meatpuppets", a name perhaps inspired by the band of the same name. They are often difficult to distinguish from real sock puppets and are treated similarly. Neither a sock puppet nor a single-purpose account holder is regarded as a member of the Wikipedia community. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual.

The bolding of the final part is my own emphasis. Have fun, Bill Huffman 02:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That is interesting. Does that mean that in the future we should add together Supreme Cmdr/WarhawkSP's edits and reverts, as they should be regarded as one person? Or in other words if SC reverts twice, and WH reverts twice, have they violated WP:3rr? If SC is banned, and WH edits during this ban, may we revert as per WP:Ban? Mael-Num 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty new to WP so I really can't say except the policy/guideline mentions "for the purpose of dispute resolution". I read that to mean when discussing more official disputes like WP:3RR then they would be treated as one individual. I would also interpret that it means that the meatpuppet issue would need to be discussed as part of the official dispute resolution discussion. That does not mean that one necessarily treats them as one individual when discussing edits on the article talk page? Bill Huffman 15:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No, WarHawk/WarHawkSP has not been established as a sock/meatpuppet of Supreme Cmdr. You must assume good faith otherwise and treat them as separate users. Besides, SC's "ban" is really not so much a ban as it is a block. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More format changes

I've removed the year-by-year subsections to the article. While this type of style is useful for some bios, I propose that it's not appropriate for several reasons. First off, it's redundant; most of the sentences in the article already mention the year. Secondly, most of the subsections are short; one of them is two sentences long, another one is three sentences. Third, there's a gap between 1998 and 2001 that's not covered. Finally, the Wikipedia layout style guidelines believe that subsection overkill "inhibits the flow and makes the article cluttered".

I've also consolidated the single-sentence paragraphs in the former "2001-2002" and "2005-2006" sections. Again, layout style guidelines state that this inhibits the flow of the article. I assert these edits are non-controversial, as the article content isn't changed at all. Cardinal2 03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I support this change. I post this knowing a certain someone will be along to start a revert war or something. --Jeff 04:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I have reverted it. The previous format was just FINE Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 22:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What part of WP:OWN do you not understand? --ElKevbo 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I restored the formatting changes, since Supreme Cmdr has been banned from editing this article by the admins. Ehheh 22:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think the format change was warranted either. So I have reverted it and add new edits.WarHawkSP 22:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You've already expressed your disapproval, SC. There's no need to be repetitive. Mael-Num 15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a compromise? "Pre-2000", "2000-2005", "2005-Present". I have to agree with Cardinal2 and he quoted valid guidelines, but I also see the value in maintaining the line of history. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats sounds like a good compromise to me. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This layout takes care of most of my issues: It removes the three-year gap, there aren't any two or three-sentence sections, and the "chronological redundancy" isn't a noticeable factor. Good job, Nuggetboy. Thanks for agreeing, SC.

I'd still like to see the single-sentence paragraphs eliminated, but I don't think that simple paragraph consolidation is the answer, after trying that yesterday. I think perhaps some of the information is more relevant to the articles for the games, rather than the programmer himself. For example, the page for Simcity includes a section describing the history of the game; something similar could be done with the BC3K and Universal Combat pages by transferring some of the material that's currently here. There are three problems, though: it's a pretty fair task to shift through this stuff, almost any activity on this page seems to result in edit wars, and we'll be expanding those wars to three pages instead of just one. Still, any thoughts on this idea? Cardinal2 01:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why there should be a compromise. The style for the wiki is laid out. Publications don't form a committee to decide what style to use in formatting their pages on a per-article basis. There is one previously standardized format, and it is adhered to. In addition to this argument from best practices and common sense, Cardinal's revision appears far less amateurish. This isn't a fifth grade book report. I strongly recommend reverting to his format. Mael-Num 15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aggregate scores again

I recently reverted changes which threaten to once again open a long settled revert war over the inclusion of non-scientifict aggregate scores. This issue was already discussed over here and here. Jeffness obviously did not check the archives as he claimed to have. He also removed an entry I made yesterday about the new games.

Tomorrow I intend to revert those changes back, but am creating this topic as notice. WarHawkSP 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting exactly where in the archive the instances you cited. I looked at the first one and I don't see a consensus there - just the discussion ending with Supreme_Cmdr's post. And the second one, while quite lengthy, doesn't seem to accomplish anything either. I ran across them in my search through the discussion, but my search was also skimming - searching for the word "Ranking". It doesn't look to me like a consensus was reached. On an unrelated note, can you please look at the progress on the rewrite? I'm especially interested in your feelings on it since you're such a strong proponent of the Derek Smart article. Thanks. --Jeff 21:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The rankings were never there to begin with. They were added (by Kerr?) in an attempt to cast the games in a bad light. Their addition was never sanctioned, were never there to begin with, and several advocated against it. The scores are non-scientific and should in no way, shape or form, be used to push a POV; which is what the intent is and was. Anyone going to the links, can see the scores for themselves. WarHawkSP 12:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

While I will not speculate as to the reasons why other people would like the rankings included or excluded, I can say with authority that I included the rankings because, when I was reading the article, I came to their mention as existing, yet could not find them on the page. I needed to follow the citation to gather this information. This simply will not do. The point of an encyclopedia is to gather information in one convenient place for the reader. Sending people chasing through links to determine information as elementary as a rating for a game when both the game and the game's review are mentioned is bad form. Mael-Num 17:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment that the previous discussions were just discussions with no consensus to keep or remove the rankings in question. I think it's completely silly to mention that these particular sources ranked or rated the game without including the actual rankings or ratings. It's perfectly reasonable to include them. --ElKevbo 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. WarHawkSP 12:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I also do not see a consensus, and it appears that the current consensus is to include the reviews' ratings. Furthermore, there are other ratings included in the article. Why are they allowed? Mael-Num 23:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no such consensus to include it. WarHawkSP 12:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, you are mistaken. Your view that these rankings should be omitted is, as can be seen on this talk page, unique. Blinding your eye to this fact doesn't change it. Mael-Num 17:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What you have to realise is that the two SPA's, Supreme_Cmdr who is arguable Smart himself, and the appropriately named sock puppet WarhawkSP, who has a similar abrasive style to Supreme_Cmdr are meant on expunging anything critical of Smart in this wiki. Smart has never written a a good game as evidenced by the poor ratings however they want to prevent this being highlighted. They tend to put forth various distortions like the current incident claiming a consensus to support their POV when there never was one. All we agreed initially was that we will avoid using words like "poor rating" etc and be neutral. We never agreed that including ratings was not neutral. It's just Warhawk distorting and lying to confuse the issue. Jeff's rewrite is perfectly acceptable and in accordance with wiki guidlines.Kerr avon 07:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For someone whose edits are meaningless, never allowed to stand and who continues to violate WP:NPA, you have no ground to stand on. WarHawkSP 12:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got a pretty good idea of what's going on with this article, having read the history before I made any edits. While there appear to be several people pushing their own POVs, I don't think including a rating from a source which is linked for sake of convenience to the reader is biased, and that's why I included it, and will defend that edit. Mael-Num 10:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Mael-Num regarding the justification of his edit. His edit is NPOV and is perfectly justified.Kerr avon 11:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with it. So there. WarHawkSP 12:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I read this article for the first time this morning, and I found the mention of the aggregate review scores rather disconcerting, since they did not summarize said scores. I suggest mentioning the scores, and perhaps adding a reference to any claims that the review was "unscientific" (I don't believe I've ever read a "scientific" game review, however--they're justifiably often rather subjective). Traumerei 13:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The review scores have no basis in the article and these folks trying to push a POV, know this. Their intent is to point the finger and say that because the aggregate scores are low, so the game must be bad. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, for the UC game, Metacritic has 48% out of only four reviews. While GR has 58% out of many more. Yes, reviews are subjective and non-scientific which is why Supreme Cmdr came up with the new wording. This debate was very much dead until this fellow shows up and gets right back to shoving those scores in and without any other edits. THAT clearly demonstrates a POV pushing action and intent. WarHawkSP 18:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your personal inferences are just that. No one is saying anything more than "The game was reviewed. This site produced an aggregate of review scores. This is that score." I cannot see any way to be more neutral than that. To not include the score would be obscurantism, and that's no good.

Also, I must ask you to remain civil and assume good faith on my part with respect to these edits. Accusing me of "shoving scores in" and claiming that this "demonstrates...POV pushing" is neither civil nor assuming good faith. Mael-Num 19:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like some clarification as to what further summary you feel is necessary to validate an aggregate score. To my knowledge, when dealing with a group of numbers, one way of "summarizing" that group is to average them together in some way, which is what an aggregate score is. Are you suggesting that it is necessary to describe how or why numbers are averaged together, or just these numbers? Mael-Num 18:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If that was in response to my comment Mael-Num, I see that 144.189.5.201 has included an excellent excerpt below of the methodology used by Game Rankings to arrive at their scores. Their aggregation mechanism seems fair and reasonable to me--my only suggestion would be that, as an aid to casual readers, who may not be familiar with review aggregation sites, it is made clear that those review scores are not generated by those websites themselves (of course, the curious can always read the primary articles for say Game Rankings, but a small note would help); perhaps a phrase along the lines of "the aggregate incorporates review scores by well-known sites such as Gamespot, which awarded a score of 60%". Traumerei 21:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that these sites appear to create these rankings by weighting other sources' rankings, I don't think it's entirely wrong or misleading to state that these sites do generate their rankings or ratings. I would prefer to leave the details of their methodologies in their respective articles. --ElKevbo 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Traumerei, I would agree with ElKevbo's statements, and would also like to add that just using the word "aggregate" implies essentially the wording that you suggested be added to the article. However, you do have a point that to some readers, this may not be clear. Perhaps the word "aggregate" could be replaced with Aggregate or even aggregate or some other in-text link so that a reader may very easily get clarification, without being too wordy. Mael-Num 22:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The context of the average review scores is that they were put in the article to replace the misleading adjectives provided by Supreme_Cmdr (who, for example, characterized a 50-something% review score as "above average".) The qualifier "unscientific" was added by Supreme_Cmdr as a way of softening the blow after the misleading adjectives were replaced with actual numbers.

I support the inclusion of the scores, although I'm open to discussion over how it should be phrased. Nandesuka 14:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I offer further proof direct from Metacritics themselves that their scores are subjective. Just by their description over here as well as their use of colored boxes and their preference weights given to reviews they LIKE, makes those scores unscientific and suspicious. I rest my case. WarHawkSP 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Having reviewed that information from Metacritics, I am of the opinion that their methods for weighing scores appear to be fair and a good methodology for producing an aggregate score. It is perfectly sensible to add more weight to a larger publication's review, per the Metacritics FAQ. Surely not every Joe with a keyboard and a review page should be given the weight that GameSpot is, and Metacritic acknowledges this. If anything, the information about their rating process suggests that they are more scientific in their approach than I had previously known. Mael-Num 19:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The current wording is acceptable, as nothing could be more neutral IMHO. We have just stated that two of the most prominent aggregating sites have geiven aggregate scores and there values respectively. Due to the low score that is given SC and SP Warhawk may argue that the there aggregates are "non scientific" however the fact is that both have independently given similar scores (~50%s) to Smart's games which are critically panned and by consensus mediocre or at the best can be considered average. On the other hand industrial classics like Morrowind and Oblivion have received aggregate scores of 89% [[2]]and 94% [3] respectively, show that these sites give a accurate idea to a gamer regarding the quality of the games and can be cited.Kerr avon 14:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I take exception to the use of the term "unscientific". To include such a descriptor would be editorializing, and thus, cannot be WP:NPOV. What's more, any review is essentially an opinion, and at this level cannot be terribly "scientific", yet we include other reviews from sites such as Gamespot and PC Gamer, so one can conclude that the consensus is the inclusion of reviews and rankings would be useful to the reader who is interested in reading about Derek Smart and his games. Our role is to verify, report, and cite. Padding that with language such as "unscientific" may be useful if we were writing for the King of Siam, but it has no place here. Mael-Num 18:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your case can be safely rested yet, Warhawk. 'Non-scientific' is injecting a POV into the article. It needs to be sourced. Wikipedia can't call them non-scientific any more than it can call Derek Smart nasty names. The article needs to merely report that some reliable source has called them non-scientific. Ehheh 18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I assert that labeling these inherently-subjective game reviews and aggregations of game reviews and scores "unscientific" is a red herring. "Scientific" is not a measure used to judge whether this material should be added to this article. Merits such as verifiability (not truth) and due weight are how we judge information in Wikipedia. On those merits these sources should be included as they are relatively well-known and oft-used sources of this kind of information. Further, merely including them is not itself proof of POV or efforts to slander Smart or his games. Were one to go further and try to do that I hope that I would recognize it and object to such behavior. But I don't see that happening right now. --ElKevbo 19:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am generally in argeement with your position, ElKevbo. But if Warhawk comes up with reliable sources that criticise Metacritic, I wouldn't mind including a short reference to that criticism in the interests of finding compromise. Ehheh 19:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would mind including any such reference. This article isn't about Metacritic or Game Rankings, it's about Derek Smart and ostensibly about his games. If such a criticism is found, file it under the wiki entries for the website. Our role is not to scrutinize and comment on every little scrap of info pertaining to Smart, it is to report pertinent and verifiable information. A discussion of a review site fails the first of those two requirements. Mael-Num 20:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If one source calls another into question, it's responsible to either note that for the reader, or use neither source. I'm not going to argue much about this now, however, since no such second source has been found and I'm unsure one could be found anyway. I'm merely outlining for Warhawk what he should do to keep some version of his preferred wording in the article. Ehheh 21:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

WarHawk is just lawyering. The fundamental principle is that reviews of games and movies are subjective and hence cannot be categorised as scientific, however good critics can tell a good game from a bad one. Smart's games have been panned by most critics justifiably, in the article one can see that even the publisher Dreamcatcher reduced the price of the game citing that the poor graphics quality of Smart's games did not justify a high grade price tag and justified a "bargain-bin" price tag instead.

As review of a movie or game is going to be inherently unscientific as it is a subjective assesment based on the critics experiences, what we have to look at is the overall rating. The fact that Metacritic and Gamerankings have arrived at two similar aggregate scores in their 50's for Smart's games show that there approach is not biased. Just be honest, do Smart's games justify been rated more than 50%? No, generally the rating system is something like this, >90% = Industrial classic - example Oblivion Command and Conquer, >75-90% = Good and notable game which is worth buying - ex Doom 3, Soldier of Fortune, >50-75%, a game which has flaws but can be worth buying. <50% = Stay away from these games. Kerr avon 19:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Game Rankings has a very thorough explanation of their methodology for their rankings and how they decide which reviews to include or exclude from the rankings. rankings explanation

Q. What does it take to get a site included in the composite score of Game Rankings?

A. This is the most commonly asked question. The things we look for when adding a new site are:

At Least 300 archived reviews if they review multiple systems or 100 reviews if they concentrate

on only one system or genre.

The site does at least 15 reviews a month.

The site is visually appealing and looks professional.

The site reviews a variety of titles.

The site has it's own domain name and is not hosted on GeoCities or another free server.

The reviews need to be well written.

The site conducts itself in a professional manner.

Q. Shouldn't sites that score on a scale of 1-100 have more influence than sites that score out of 5 stars?

A. I couldn't agree more with this. I have a really nice formula to calculate average scores based on a

weighting system, however, using the average is much more simplier and everyone understands it. I

actually ran a test with the new formula and things didn't change all that much. This all goes back

to the consistency issue. As long as a site is consistant and gives every good game a 5 out of 5

then it will effect all of them equally. 144.189.5.201 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to present this useful information to your fellow editors so that we may consider it with respect to the inclusion of the scores in question. Mael-Num 19:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that some editors may be working off of a different definition of consensus than I believe is the typical WP usage. Here's the online Merrium-Webster definition

1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports...from the border -- John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

I believe the normal WP usage of the term is definition 1b rather than 1a. Bill Huffman 02:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A far better description of WP consensus may be found at Wikipedia:Consensus. :-) Bill Huffman 11:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future Works

As was previously mentioned on this talk page, upcoming unpublished works may fall into the category of WP:Dated. I tend to agree with this observation as such things are always subject to change. No previous consensus was reached as the discussion appeared to shift to new topics, so I am revisiting this idea with its own discussion heading.

While I feel that tentative information doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and instead falls into the realm of current events publications such as gaming magazines, it should be noted that other articles make mention of upcoming titles by their authors and developers. Will Wright's article makes mention of his upcoming title Spore (video game), and the (coincidentally named) Supreme Commander is mentioned in Chris Taylor's biography. However, there is a difference between these references and what was previously done in mentioning Smart's upcoming titles here in his biography. These other titles have their own Wikipedia entries with their own references and links, allowing the reader to learn more about these games in, for lack of a better term, a Wikipedic way. In other words with respect to the standards of Wikipedia that are, presumably, neutral, well-researched, etc.

I propose that if we wish to include Smart and 3000AD's upcoming titles, it would be fair to most fair to Smart, his fans, and Wikipedia's readers to give these future publications the same treatment. If articles similar to the ones that exist for Spore (video game) and Supreme Commander were to be created for Derek Smart's upcoming titles, then I think it would be a fair compromise to include these articles in his biography. To merely state that the game exists and hand the reader off to some press release or 3000AD forum page is sloppy, and more importantly, irresponsible to those who come to Wiki for answers. Mael-Num 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite has been merged in

I've asked an admin to merge the rewritten article in and it has been done. It seemed those commenting seemed agreeable to the result, and 2 semi-objectionable mentions were hidden pending discussion later. Please review and fix sentences/grammar as you see problems. Great. --Jeff 01:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a real Wikipedia article now! Great job editors! Bill Huffman 02:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks great. The only problem I could find was a punctuation mark, although the italics during the Freespace controversy subsection are a bit confusing. If you told me two weeks ago that we'd be able to get this article to this point, I wouldn't have believed you. Cardinal2 05:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Present tense/Future Proofing

The intro starts "Derek Smart is one of the very few independent software designers developing video games today."

Is there a way to rewrite this so that it is not present tense and will still remain in the future? Uncle uncle uncle 03:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you answered your own question...how's about something like:

"Derek Smart remains one of the very few independent software designers developing video games today."?

This last response was also from me. I flipped around the opening so that it still says that he is something, and that his status as an independent developer sounds more continuous.Mael-Num 04:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Made a change and removed the operative word "Today", as "Today" is always a moving target. --Jeff 05:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but I'm not sure what Uncle^3 had in mind. Still, lookin good. Mael-Num 06:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden PhD Section

It is unclear to me what kind of reference it is that editor's are actually looking for. Perhaps I can help do the research for you if you but ask. For example, during September 10-11, 1999, Mr. Smart changed his sig on Usenet to read

Derek Smart, PhD (non-accredited)

Here's a google search to maybe a dozen Mr. Smart posts with the above first line in his sig. One of those short posts might be a more concise example but, I'm not sure what is being looked for. Bill Huffman 04:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems the major problem with that section is that it violates WP:RS: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources." If we could find a games article somewhere that talks about the situation, we could use that. Personally, though, If it's objectionable to include it without citation, then we should wait until WP:ATT becomes policy, which is a new attribution policy that would allow us to attribute writings as citations in Wikipedia, so long as they were by the subject of the article. In this case, there are mounds and mounds of statements by Derek we could then cite through Google Groups UseNET archive that just aren't available elsewhere at reliable sources.. I think it kind of sucks, but I really don't feel like arguing over WP:RS. It is bending the rules a tad, even though I think they're perfectly good citations. --Jeff 05:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if you don't feel like arguing over WP:RS, I will if needed.

EDIT: Additional text moved to the section immediately below) Mael-Num 07:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that there were some early interviews that touched on the PhD issue but the links to all those old articles are dead. This is really all very old stuff. I don't even know whether or not Mr. Smart still claims a PhD. I hope not because I think Florida finally reinstated their law against claiming unaccredited PhD's. Anyway, I'm interested in helping as long as it is not editting the actual article. I'm "cursed" with a detailed memory and too much of this nonsense is stuck in my memory banks. So feel free to ask if you need a research task done for the article. Have fun, Bill Huffman 07:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a nonUSENET instance of Smart signing his name PhD at [4] --Beaker342 02:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus cannot trump Wiki policy. Just because he signs his name with a Ph.D. tag at the end, does not warrant the ignoring of Wiki policy and your creating such a section in order to sneak past WP:RS, WP:BLP and other policies. Also, you cannot use hidden pages to hide controversial and contestest topics. Please READ up on Wiki before doing that. I have now reported this issue to TWO admins. Please do not put it back in until one of them responds. I see now why you folks try hard to get other editors blocked so that you can shove your agenda of tainting this Wiki past policy since Supreme_Cmdr is on a temporary ban. WarHawkSP 12:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely critical that the wording for this section be neutral. The current proposal should be improved upon, IMHO. I'll give a counter proposal in a bit. I further propose that before the PhD section be added to the article that we wait for the opinion of WarHawkSP/Supreme_Cmdr/and/or/DerekSmart. If he refuses to comment and instead just uses his rv technique, that is fine and expected but give him a chance to discuss it even if he doesn't take advantage of it. Of course he had plenty of chance previously but declined. Perhaps wait for WP:ATT before adding it? Alternatively, is it too late for you all to change your vote to delete the article? :-) You must assume that it will be escalated as far as is Wiki possible.

Ph.D. Controversy

Part of the online controversey involves Derek Smart's Ph.D.[5] [6]. Derek Smart has said that he earned his Ph.D. from an unaccredited correspondence school. Derek Smart has chosen to not make public the name of his school.

So what are some comments? If editors think it looks okay I will be happy to find references for all the facts. Bill Huffman 04:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation of Usenet archives

Ok. Here's where we'll conduct discussion about this major issue concerning the article. The issue is, "Does current WP policy support the use of Usenet citations or external links. The involved policies are WP:RS, WP:Verifiability, WP:BIO and WP:EL and the proposed policy of WP:ATT.

• Support - This article is mostly about someone who gained notoriety through being a Usenet personality. So much so that it's almost as though his games development has been ancillary to his biographical status, but it certainly helps his case for meeting WP:NOTE requirements anyway. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to write a Biography about Smart when you keep yourself from including the primary source of his notability, his Usenet posts. I believe that the nature of the situation dictates that we include these citations. In WP:BIO#Using_the_subject_as_a_source it states the conditions of using the subject of an article as a source. They are as follows:

• It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies. - The person posting on usenet is 100% verified as Smart
• It is relevant to the person's notability; - Definitely!
• It is not contentious; - It's only contentious for disingenuous reasons
• It is not unduly self-serving; - No self-serving here
• There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject. - It was not provided by the subject for the purposes of the article

My feelings are further enamored by the coming policy, WP:ATT which will justify attribution when through its exception clause, "3. Where professional sources offer shallow coverage" which allows us to use the Usenet writings of Smart in cases where other sources are lacking. In this case, there are no professional sources that illustrate the statements made in the article properly.

Finally, where better to source than "From the horse's mouth"? --Jeff 06:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Great minds think alike (and fools seldom differ). It appears that while you were writing this up, I was approaching the question from another angle. I am moving my thoughts from the section above to here:

I believe the spirit of that rule is that Usenet posts not be used as an authoritative source with respect to outside matters. For example, if someone were to write something up in rec.games.video.classic stating that Mr. Do! was the precursor to the modern first person shooter genre, and someone were to incorporate that citation into a Wikipedia article as proof that Gordon Freeman's ancestor was a clown, then we should reject the claim and remove it from Wikipedia as the source is dubious. However, we are doing nothing of the sort here. We are using Usenet posts as evidence that something happened on Usenet. Usenet is a primary source when it comes to matters related to usenet. In fact, other Wikipedia articles related to Usenet personalities both fictional and real use Google Group's archive of Usenet as sources. In addition, there are Wikipedia articles that use archives of Usenet posts to support articles describing Usenet phenomena or groups. In short, if it's okay for these articles to use usenet as a source when describing senet, we should be able to use Usenet too.

One might even argue in light of some of these other Wikipedia articles that the Werewolves site or parts of it should be allowed, at the very least as an external link. But let's take this one step at a time and discuss the use of Google Groups and other plainly neutral Usenet archives. Mael-Num 07:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support For reasons stated above. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Usenet should be a reliable source for what's been said on Usenet. Ehheh 21:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The only apprehension I have is that we must demonstrate a non-Usenet link between the Usenet postings in question and Derek Smart. Without such a demonstrable link, the only we can really do is state that "these Usenet postings exists and are signed with Smart's name but there is no way to link Smart to this postings as Usenet postings are effectively anonymous." If Smart has claimed those postings, however, then I believe they're fair game for this article (within the limits of other policies and considerations such as "due weight," of course). --ElKevbo 21:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Very wise comments/notes from everyone, also very wise are the following policies and guidelines, WP:RS, WP:Verifiability, WP:BIO and WP:EL and the proposed policy of WP:ATT. I've read it all and given thought to it all. Inparticular ElKevbo's comments are especially important to address within the context of the wise WP policies/guidelines. I think that there is sufficient evidence to make a convincing argument that goes beyond a resonable doubt that connects the Usenet dsmart persona to the Derek Smart persona that this article is about. I will try to get that done tonight and will enter it into this section when done. Bill Huffman 02:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be awesome Bill, Thanks. --Jeff 02:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Support Derek Smart's claim to fame lies not in the quality of his games which as we all know are average, but due to his involvement in the longest running flame war in the history of the USENET. This alone should justify citation of the USENET post's. I wish to make the following points,

1. Derek Smart's claim to fame is due to his controversial USENET discussions, his involvement in the longest running flame war in the USENET history as evidenced by a google group search on "Derek Smart" [7], which yields a astonishing 51,600 results which shows the huge amount of controversy he has generated. A google group search of the infinitely more notable John Carmack who created Doom and many industrial classics [8], yields only 18,200, once again showing how much discussion the Derek Smart controversy has generated on the USENET.

2. They are signed with Smart's signature and most importantly Smart has never denied that he has posted the messages.

3. In a case like Smart's the USENET can be taken as a WP:RS, due to the nature of the person concerned, ie he became (in)famous due to his USENET contributions.Kerr avon 15:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• strongly oppose It is neither allowed, nor practical and not in the least supported under WP:BLP or WP:EL. All you folks are trying to do is change policy so that all the crap that was on Usenet, NONE of which can be verified, are entered into this Wiki. It will never fly. Nobody cares about what Derek Smart does in his spare time, whether he walks down the street naked, goes boating or engages in online controversies. None of those arguments are relevant to a Wiki of a person who is clearly covered on WP:BLP and for which the focus is on his achievements or lackof. This is yet another attempt at dragging this Wiki into a pov-pushing edit war because most of you know for a fact that this is going to be a problem. He is a game developer. Period. End of story. WarHawkSP 21:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account WarHawkSP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.Kerr avon 23:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. But for the USENET flamewars, Derek Smart would be an obscure and unknown software developer. His unusual behavior is the only reason that anyone knows his name. Not discussing that makes this article pointless. And, as Ehheh observed, USENET is a reliable source for the specific purpose of indicating what was said on USENET. Nandesuka 00:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest support per above. He's 100% verifiable, it's perfectly acceptable per WP:RS and WP:EL, despite what warhawk would have you believe.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 07:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Smart (Game Developer) same as Derek Smart (Usenet Poster/Flamer)

I decided to put this in a new section because it got kind of long.

There was a Usenet persona with an email handle known as dsmart that frequently posted on Usenet from 1997 to March 2002. The persona dsmart was a major participant in a Usenet flame war during this time.

There is a game developer featured in the WP article named Derek Smart.

I believe that the following evidence shows that these two persona’s are one and the same person.

• Dsmart stated in every post that he was in fact Derek Smart. Dsmart used the name “Derek Smart” in his posts. Dsmart had a sig in almost every Usenet post that had the following first three lines (or something close).

Derek Smart Ph.D.

Designer/Lead Developer

www.3000ad.com

• Derek Smart claims that he is dsmart in interviews and on the forums at www.3000ad.com . For example Mr. Smart’s website has a link to an interview of Mr. Smart.

http://www.3000ad.com/press/index.shtml then access the link for the 7/18/2000 Adrenaline Vault interview on page six of the interview Mr. Smart says

I'm just like them, a gamer and I have no airs of superiority other than the authority I wield, as the Supreme Commander of the domain I built. Heck, I even have my own personal stalking detractors -- but they're not gamers, they're just anti-social psychotics, giving gamers a bad name and a bad rap, while doing everything they can in order to bring down the house that dsmart built.

• Derek Smart has admitted in interviews that he participates in the Usenet flamewar. For example, see the quote above and the quote linked to in the Derek Smart article.
• Dsmart posted the following on July 31, 2000

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic/msg/669357c7632d4e87?&hl=en

---

From: Derek Smart <dsm...@pobox.com>

Subject: Re: The coerced reviews at PCGR begin ..

Date: 2000/07/31

Message-ID: <t83boscl54n531o4q3libbmidt4tdhb1l9@4ax.com>#1/1

X-Deja-AN: 652791413

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

References: <VYKf5.446$gU5.2718@news-east.usenetserver.com> <4hu0oss6je11ubn3h9e26u1hescthmsh18@4ax.com> <8lpvb7$5hc$3@nntp1.ba.best.com> <8lq08j$5hc$6@nntp1.ba.best.com> <398086EF.1ED94760@flash.net> <Jf5g5.1528$w3.65783@typhoon.nyc.rr.com> <mj34oskvrd5lk5nerpapvavbl67o99acfd@4ax.com> <398213a2.47843420@news.cis.dfn.de> <lv16ossvrrpt7r6a4se4fb1dqvdo167doh@4ax.com> <3983da78.164298374@news.cis.dfn.de> <7ba8oss8rauh6617qsp52ivpi3vr91fobr@4ax.com>

Organization: 3000AD

X-Server-Date: 31 Jul 2000 14:36:59 GMT

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Mime-Version: 1.0

Reply-To: dsm...@-NOSPAMFORME-pobox.com

Newsgroups: alt.games.bc3000ad,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic

On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 09:11:22 -0400, Derek Smart <dsm...@pobox.com>

wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 07:36:49 GMT, l3ms...@btinternet.com (Lemming)

>wrote:

>

>>On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 12:47:19 -0400, Derek Smart <dsm...@pobox.com>

>>wrote:

>>

>>>On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 00:16:38 GMT, l3ms...@btinternet.com (Lemming)

>>>wrote:

>>>>

>>>>Derek - could you post a link to a scan of a photo of the piece of

>>>>Mars metal you have on your desk?

>>>

>>>I can do better. Send me your address and I'll snail mail it to you. I

>>>trust you'll send it back. I fear that if I just took a pic of it,

>>>others would shoot it down as a forgery, so, why bother? But, if you

>>>insist, let me know and I'll take a pic of it with my Logitech color

>>>cam and post it on the site.

>>

>>A link will be fine - and I understand what you mean about being shot

>>down - but I suspect that will happen whoever posts the scan.

>

>I'll do it in a few mins and send you the link

Below are the pics of the space rock sent to me by Final Frontier mag

a few years back. IIRC, they said it was from Mars. Its a piece of

silver metal. If they had said outer space 'rock', I would've thought

- meteorite.

There you have it, draw your own conclusions.

www.3000ad.com/temp/et_pic1.jpg (200K)

www.3000ad.com/temp/et_pic2.jpg (178K)

www.3000ad.com/temp/et_pic3.jpg (213K)

Derek Smart Ph.D.

Designer/Lead Developer

The Battlecruiser Series

www.3000ad.com

"It's not everyone telling me it can't be done that bothers me.

It's them interrupting me while I'm doing it!"

---

Note that dsmart has linked directly to some images that have been placed on the temp directory of Derek Smart’s business website. Also one of the pictures shows Derek holding the piece of metal that is allegedly from Mars. Here’s a link to the image that shows Derek and was archived away on a different website. http://follies.werewolves.org/Images/MarsRock.jpg Here’s the magazine image that he mentioned. http://follies.werewolves.org/Images/MarsRockMag.jpg

If I missed something or anyone has questions or comments then please let me know. I'm at your service. Have fun, Bill Huffman 07:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It got kind of late and there were a couple other related thoughts I wanted to make. Most importantly the above does not prove that any particular post belongs to Mr. Smart (with the exception of the Mars Metal post). Instead I think it shows that Mr. Smart participated in the flame war. It would require a larger pattern than just one post to be shown the post was from the set of Mr. Smart's bona fide postings. For example, the claim to a Ph.D. would seem well established since that claim was in almost every post. Other information would be more difficult and would require the research into reading Usenet posts over a period of days or weeks to make sure there was a consistent pattern and we are not just locking onto one rogue post that had been forged. Since I was at least an observer and a frequent poster in the flame war I can say that there were a very few examples (perhaps on the order of two or three) where someone tried to seriously forge a Derek Smart post or two. They were sniffed out very quickly and never made a significant impact to the overall thread where the post was made. The other thing is what I think is rather minor. Mr. Smart apparently asked Google to blank out his email address because it has been changed to "dsm...@pobox.com" everywhere that I checked on Google. I can try to check into that with Google if people think that it is relevant? Bill Huffman 16:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Silly me, I should have noticed. ALL email addresses have been blanked out not just Mr. Smart's. Bill Huffman 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey bill. I certainly appreciate the time it took to compile this information, but I didn't see any citings we could use. The citing would need to be from a professional publication. As an attack site, werewolves will never work for citation, nor will the photos. If we could find a games publication that affirmatively ties Derek Smart ti Usenet email dsmart@pobox.com then that would be what we're looking for. As it is, it looks like we are going forward with citing Usenet posts made by Derek for the purposes of this article, but having a professional cite affirming the verifiability would be great.--Jeff 18:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The loonygames editorial [9] links Smart to the pobox address.--Beaker342 20:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Careful folks. You're starting to wander towards original research. Let's stick to well-documented information of general interest to readers of this encyclopedia article. This should not become a Derek Smart expose; it should be sufficient to state that he has been involved in controversies about issues X, Y, and Z (with citations documenting those controversies) and move on. We should most certainly not be involved in conducting research of any kind to make novel claims or inferences. --ElKevbo 17:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what if the reason a person comes looking for this article is that they're wondering if Derek Smart is a doctor or not? That is to say, we've got to do some research before we can put up information related to this topic, as it obviously may be of interest to a reader. Mael-Num 20:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, in context I see what you mean. The mars rock information is novel (and humorously wacky) but all that needs to be done here is to positively identify as the author of articles pertaining to the Ph.D. posts. I doubt that we will be able to find a sufficiently neutral gaming site that will document this as a third party. When it comes to Usenet posts, is there anything like a "fingerprint" that we can use to tie all of these posts together, and then tie that to Derek Smart? Would it be sufficient to verify that the user name and host that the pertinent Usenet posts came from are Derek Smart's host/user name? I am not familiar enough with Usenet to know if such a thing can be falsified. Mael-Num 20:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

All you guys are doing is allowing a notorious net stalker and the editor of a Smart attack site, inject his pov into a Wiki that should, first and foremost be NPOV and based on WP:BLP criteria. Why do you people even think that Bills involvement in this Wiki has anything to do with an npove edit. All hes trying to do is inject the same hate filled conjecture riddled rhetoric he has on his Werewolves attack site, in this Wiki. But given the motivation of some of you (e.g. Kerr) I cant say that am surprised. WarHawkSP 21:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That is like the pot calling the kettle black. Surely your own biased edits have demonstrated that your edits do not qualify under NPOV at all. So you are hardly in a position to talk about NPOV. Bill has not edited the derek smart article currently. If he so wishes to discuss on the talk page, then it should be permitted and i see no objection to him discussing on a talk page.Kerr avon 22:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it has been recommended in other cases where an editor has a possible conflict of interest that he or she post only to the Talk page of the article in question. While we haven't taken and likely won't take all of Huffman's suggestions he is definitely welcome to post them here on the Talk page. The fault for "injecting POV" into the article belongs squarely with the editor(s) making such edits. --ElKevbo 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Both WP:BLP and the propsoed WP:ATT clearly state that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material] any text that violates BLP should be removed from both the article AND the talk page]. EVERYTHING you guys are discussing right now and which Huffman is promoting, falls into that category. So, it looks like its time to call in an admin because I am going to remove all of them. You guys have this mob metality down pat. All I can say is that you can carry on but your efforts will be wasted once a neutral admin comes in here and edits this Wiki according to Wiki policy. WarHawkSP 23:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is your own POV that it fails WP guidlines. The best thing to solve the problem is to agree with a broad consensus that Smart's USENET postings can be used as a reliable source, as USENET archives have been used as reliable sources in biographies which have involved people whose main claim to fame lies with his/her contributions to the USENET, as is in the case of Smart.Kerr avon 23:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WarhawkSP, I strongly suggest that you try harder to follow the assume good faith WP guideline. I've fully and honestly explained what my intent here was. That is first to correct false statements, especially ones made about me and second to help out if I can. I have not ever attempted to edit the Derek Smart article. I felt that the whole article should be deleted because I guessed that progress would never really be made. I have been proven wrong. This is very pleasing to me. It is so pleasing I'm going to do something for the first time which you have accused me of doing multiple times, that is give my opinion on the content of the Derek Smart article. Bill Huffman 03:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The above analysis at the beginning of this section was simply meant to show that Derek Smart (Game Developer) and Derek Smart (Usenet Poster/Flamer) were in fact the same person. The analysis of the thread on QT3 that Supreme_Cmdr helpfully linked for us showed one example as to what the common knowledge is regarding Derek Smart. I suggest three points of information be made in the controversy section. 1. That is that he insults his customers/potential customers, engages in flaming. 2. He seems to magically know when he is being discussed on a forum and magically shows up. It is common on the forums for someone to post "Derek Smart, Derek Smart, Derek Smart" and then he magically shows up. 3. He claims a PhD that has something fishy about it. I think that these three things are commonly known. My feeling is that an encyclopedia should at least contain common knowledge in a biography. So I suggest that the QT3 thread is an excellent outline of the type information that should be in the Derek Smart article. Bill Huffman 03:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

To answer someone's question about indentifying source of Usenet postings, the only reliable field in a Usenet post message header is the IP address of the news server used by the poster. All other fields identifying the poster are easy to forge. During the flame war this field was frequently accessed to look for sockpuppets and post forgeries. The IP address of the news server used by the poster is apparently no longer made available to the Google interface users. This means to me that from a general reliable source point of view counting on only one Usenet post for just about any kind of reference is probably not sufficiently reliable. Bill Huffman 03:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The third item on my suggested list, that is regarding the PhD, I suggest that the wording be kept extremely neutral, needless to say. Simply that it is not-accredited. An excellent reference for this is probably Mr. Smart's posts on 9/10/1999 and 9/11/1999 where he put "PhD (not-accredited)" in his sig. Another statement on the third point of information that shouldn't be too controversial is that Mr. Smart has chosen to keep secret the name of the institution that gave him his PhD. I believe that this would be required if for no other reason than to explain why WP doesn't list that information in the biography. Probably the most famous person in the world that has an unaccredited PhD is John Gray (U.S. author). See that article for an example of how it was handled in that example. Bill Huffman 03:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the information you've put forth and the suggestions you've made, would I be correct in summarizing that if we are going to include the Ph.D. section, it in essence should state that:

• Derek Smart has in the past signed his correspondence with the abbreviation Ph.D. at the end of his name. This correspondence includes a number of posts on Usenet.
• The source of Smart's Ph.D. was called into question on Usenet, and as a result it became a frequently discussed and debated subject.
• More recently, Smart has added the additional notation of "(not-accredited)" to his signature, following the Ph.D. abbreviation.

From what I have gathered, all of these statements are verifiable, and in the consensus opinion, are neutral and noteworthy. Does anyone disagree, and should anything more/less be said than this? Perhaps we should put it to a vote? Mael-Num 04:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3000ad and Smart's Home Office

I believe the CGW article is rather clear in stating that Smart's company is run out of his home office. In the article, he says he works out of a home office, communicates with his freelance programmers out of it, and sees no reason to acquire a commerical space. Warhawk seems to believe that this does not mean the company is run out of his home, but has failed to produce any reliable source that says anything otherwise about 3000ad. Why is this so controversial? Is there a worry that this fact somehow reflects poorly on Smart? What is going on here? --Beaker342 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It is very common for small corporations to be run from the owner's home. If possible it makes the most financial sense. I don't imagine that WarHawkSP is bothered by this but I am curious what is bothering him about it? Bill Huffman 21:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think WarHawkSP's worry is that the phrase "based out of his home" makes 3000AD sound like a small organization run out of someone's garage, which would be construed as negative. (WarHawk, feel free to confirm or deny this.) That's not necessarily a bad thing: I remember a computer company that started out that way... Cardinal2 21:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, despite the connotations, the CGW article shows that Beaker's description is correct. The company is based out of his home office. I did a quick search to find a more recent article (the CGW article is five years old) which discusses his company in more detail, but to no avail. However, 3000AD's hiring site [10] states that "All jobs are remote (no relocation or travel involved) work-for-hire contract positions ranging from twelve to twenty-four months". Therefore, I think it's safe to assume that the company's infrastructure is the same as it was back in 2001. I'd like to find an elegant, one or two-word compromise which doesn't involve describing his infrastructure in grand detail (overkill), but one doesn't come to mind right now. At first, I was thinking of saying adding the term remotely. However, that connotates that the company exists in another building, while Smart stays at home; this isn't correct, since the CGW article makes it plainly clear that 3000AD - servers, FTP sites and all - is centered at Smart's home. I'm open to ideas. Cardinal2 21:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that we simply don't have sufficient evidence to state that Smart's company is run from his home. As Cardinal2 noted, the CGW article is several years old. Even if the information in the article is still correct, I don't know if it's really accurate to characterize this company as being "run out of" Smart's home unless the physical and logical infrastructure (documents, servers, etc.) are in his home, too. I think it would be sufficient to state that the company is tiny (it appears to be Smart and a few medium-term contracted employees), if it's necessary to state anything at all. Personally, I don't think it's worth mentioning at all as this article is about Smart and not his company or employees. --ElKevbo 22:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

For the original rewrite, where I wrote that 3000AD was based out of Smart's home in Weston Florida. I used the DNS Whois results for 3000AD.com for this information. [11] does that work? Usually whois records are excellent indicators of business locations. Does anyone else object to the use of this as a citation for business location? At the very least we could just say that the domain records indicate location as Weston Florida. One other thing I'd like to say is that this article is as much about 3000AD as it is about Derek Smart. 3000AD redirects to Derek Smart.--Jeff 02:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A better citation is the Florida Department of State, Divisions of Corporations. The business registration of 3000AD, inc. [12] the principal address on the business registration is definitely residential. [13] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffness (talk • contribs) 03:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

WhoIs records are notoriously unreliable. But the Florida state record is certainly an acceptable source. Good job! --ElKevbo 03:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the real debate is whether or not the factoid is pertinent. Since the article has become just as much about Smart's company as about Smart, I think the information is pertinent. It demonstrates that Smart and his company are initmately connected, they are one and the same entity. And being true information, I can't see any good reason for ommitting it. I can't help but be a little exasperated by doubts that the CGW article demonstrates that Smart's company operates out of his home. True, the article is five years old, but as I see it, the burden of proof is on those who say the information is out of date. To simply assume that it is out of date seems to me like a bad leap of logic. If we want to say that X is married to Y in an article but only have published reports of this that are five years old, we don't deny that X is married to Y unless we have reasonable suspicion to believe that they are not. As of yet no one has brought forth any evidence to for us to suspect that Smart's company is still not operated out of his home. --Beaker342 03:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." --ElKevbo 03:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware of WP:V. The claim that Smart's company was run out of his home was verified with a reliable source. Those editors wanting to remove it had no similar reliable source on which to base their argument. The argument to remove was based on speculation. I don't think I'm missing anything here. In any case an even better source has been found to verify the claim. My only worry here is privacy concerns, though the address is public record and not listed here in the article. --Beaker342 03:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't think it's a bit of a stretch to jump from "5 years ago he had a home office" to "his current company is run out of his home?" That's a pretty big stretch and I don't understand why folks would fight to keep such relatively irrelevant information in this article based on such shaky evidence. --ElKevbo 03:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately a newer source was found. --Jeff 03:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think ElKevbo makes a reasonable argument that it is not very relevant but, I would like to hear WarhawkSP's explanation as to why he doesn't want it there. Everyone has just speculated on the rational. On a related note the evidence seems to indicate that Mr. Smart is located in Weston, FL. It has a date that indicates he changed the business address to there 2/10/2005. However, a change WarhawkSP made, 20:54, 8 December 2006, changed ti from Weston to Ft Lauderdale for the location of the business. Can you provide a reliable source for that change, WarhawkSP? Bill Huffman 03:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Weston is a suburb of Fort Lauderdale, and Fort Lauderdale is known by far more people. I wouldn't be against calling it Fort Lauderdale, but the business reg and domain whois say Weston. --Jeff 03:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because the whois lists the registration as being in Weston or Fort Lauderdale doesn't mean anything. It specifically doesn't mean that his business is run from home, though it very well could be. Bascially, whoever registers a site and is the admin, will list their information. At least thats how it is for my personal website and even though I have a job as a developer, I also have a home office. So I don't see how one can deduct from a whois that his company is run from home.

I got the Fort Lauderdale from one of their press releases listed on their news page.Though another one lists Weston. Both are cities (not suburbs) in Florida, with Weston being listed as an exclusive uppper class type city. Also, theere is a Lisa listed as the PR contact at that address. ::I don't see what the big deal is and even if he worked from home, based on the rules of WP:BLP that poses a security and privacy risk.So I think its best to just leave it out, especially since we have no cite that proves it either way. This is a big deal about nothing.

Jeffness I already saw that business listing and it doesnt prove that the business is run from home. In order to prove that you would need to prove that Smart LIVES at that address. Since the CGW article as done five years ago when Smart lived in Sunrise, that right there proved my point that he may or may not live at the same location where his business is registered. I fail to see the point of all this especially when you consider that if you do prove that he LIVES and WORKS at that address, WP:BLP wont allow you to include that personal information such as his home address. So, I have once again removed it.

WarHawkSP 20:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Since it is all very public knowledge I don't see how listing the city and mentioning the home office could possibly be a security risk especially since no addresses were being put in the article. On the other hand I don't see why that information is important or even that interesting to the article. So I agree with WarHawkSP on that edit although I disagree on the other edits that he reverted. Bill Huffman 20:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the public knowledge that states Derek Smart lives were he works? IIRC, you were the same person on Usenet who had some kid (LouisJM) find out where Smart lived in Sunrise and followed him around the neighborhood. Then when Smart called the cops who then went to the kids house to arrest him, he told them clearly that you put him up to it. Its all right there on Usenet for everyone to see, along with all your other escpades against Smart. You and your friends pulled the same stunt when you heard that he had a daughter and set out to find her. You are still trying to inject your nonsense into this Wiki with your usual brand of baseless facts (as you call them). Even IF his home address was public knowledge, WP:BLP has clear rules for including such personal information. WarHawkSP 23:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the reasoning behind your comment here. Why are you arguing with Huffman after he's already agreed with you on this point? I gather that you both agree that the article should just say Ft. Lauderdale or Weston (I prefer the former, but it's not a big issue), so let's move on to another topic. Cardinal2 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WarHawkSP's rant points at a thread talking about Mr. Smart being accused by Louis of following Louis around to find out where Louis lives not Mr. Smart! It is ridiculous for me to ask Louis where Mr. Smart lived because Mr. Smart publicly published his own home address. No body that I know of ever tried to find Mr. Smart's daughter. This ridiculous rant is just another indication to me that WarHawkSP is in fact Mr. Smart. WarHawkSP please discuss the article contents and stop your violations of WP:NPA. Sincerely, Bill Huffman 00:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Huffman, I know that these editors here (apart from Kerr who was your Usenet cohort) dont know who you are and what you have done online. Now you have turned this Wiki to your personal battleground in yet another avenue to feed your Derek Smart obssession. But you are clealy a liar. You did try to locate his daughter and there are several threads on that very topic in which even your own cohorts were shocked over it. Want proof? Here is one such thread. And please STOP posting warnings in my user page. It is a Wiki violation and I will open up an RFC against you if you do it again. Given your Usenet history for stalking Derek Smart, such an RFC will no doubt open more of the world to your stalking activities. I know that you are only now harrassing me on my User page because you did the same thing on Usenet to anyone who was in any way, shape or form, supportive of Derek Smart.WarHawkSP 12:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WarHawkSP, please try harder to concentrate on the article content rather than the personalities. What you linked to was simply a statement by me that doubts the existance of Mr. Smart's daughter simply because his previous statements had proven so unreliable. Please don't violate WP:NPA and there will be no need to put warnings on your talk page. BTW, I suspect that your immediate deletion of the warning is a violation of policy. In any case, your violations of WP:NPA will cause you problems much more quickly here than they did on Usenet. Please stop, Bill Huffman 15:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As for your question "Where is the public knowledge that states Derek Smart lives were he works?", you appear to answer that question later on in your commment, when you say, "How does CGW saying that he works from home, equate to him running a business from home?" The CGW article states that he works from home: that is the public knowledge that he works where he lives. Granted, the article is five years old, but his website page for new hires indicates that the company has the same infrastructure. It states that "all jobs are remote and do not require relocation": the exact same situation as it was back during the CGW article. But it's all a moot point: it seems half the people don't want "Smart runs 3000AD out of his home" in the article, and the other half think that the company's so insignificant that it's not worth mentioning. Cardinal2 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I should also thank WarHawk for discussing his edits on the talk page. I would also like to encourage WarHawkSP to continue that process. I'm totally sold on the value of the WP editting process and the goal of it to produce high quality WP:NPOV articles. The key to making that work is respect for one another and communication. Thank you, Bill Huffman 20:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with WarHawkSP and Bill Huffman. Even though evidence such as the hiring page I mentioned earlier indicates that Smart runs his company the same way he did five years ago, it's not really important towards the article. Perhaps if there was a separate article on 3000AD that describes the company in more detail...but honestly, I don't see how the company deserves its own article. Even if it did, information on the actual company that's Wiki-worthy (is that a word?) is pretty darn sparse. Just say he lives in Ft. Lauderdale or Weston and leave it at that. It seems that there's more important issues that need fixing, and I'd like to see some consensus reached before SC comes back from his prescribed Wiki-break and goes on a reverting rampage. Cardinal2 21:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with all this. Since we have evidence from the Florida gov page that he moved since the CGW article then we don't have quite as good corroberation that the business is run out of his home. We still don't have definitive evidence that it isn't, and the Florida gov info seems to say that it is, but in the grand scheme of things it's not terribly important that this info be in the article. I thought it was interesting because it demonstrated the intimate link between Smart and his company, but what really motivated my defense of its inclusion is what I took to be WH's unjustified deletion of a fact that the CGW article plainly verified. --Beaker342 21:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You cant be serious. How does CGW saying that he works from home, equate to him running a business from home? Surely you jest. The guy is a programmer and like most programmers he works from home. Is that to say then that because Will Wright and all the other programmers who obviously have home offices AND their own companies, run them from home? Are you kidding me? WarHawkSP 23:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ars technica link

The prominent technological website Ars technica was appropritely critical of Smart's intention to develop for the console [14] due to the nature of his past track record. Warhawk has deleted it saying it is not a WP:RS and calling it a forum. First of all it is not a forum as anyone who visits the link can see. Secondararily it is a prominent site, and if Slashdot can be used for the Smart article as a reliable source then why on earth cant we use the ars link? Ars is certainly a prominent website akin to slashdot which we cited earlier. If needed and to sound neutral we can remove the comment and say "Ars technica was critical of Smart's intention to develop for the console". It is sad to see what Warhawk is hell bent on expunging anything critical of Smart and making him sound like the god of computer games programming, when Smart himself is to blame for his reputation.Kerr avon 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. That was not an Ars Technica article. It is a news item which offers an original research opinion from ONE person and NOT the site. PLUS that is a journal, which, like blogs, forum posts, Usenet etc cannot be WP:RS. Your reason for adding this link is just to point out that one persons (NOT the Ars Technica site) opinion on Smarts games. Yet another pov pushing on your part. I have removed it. Please STOP. WarHawkSP 01:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, Warhawk, would you please link or quote the specific section within WP:RS which shows that this journal is not appropriate for this article. You'll find that more people will agree with you if you actually provide specific evidence and reasoning, rather than simply saying, "You can't do that because WP:RS says so." Cardinal2 02:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Although the link in question discusses an interview about one of Smart's new games, it seems more appropriate for the "Online controversy" subsection. My reasoning is that the quote given deals more with Smart's online behavior, rather than the games themselves. Of course, this assumes that the link does indeed not violate WP:RS. Cardinal2 02:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WarHawk, other websites are allowed to (a) conduct original research and (b) hold and present their point of view. On the subject of it being a "journal:" how else are we to substantiate (perfectly acceptable) statements in articles that state that "people hold this opinion" or, more ideally, "so-and-so holds this opinion" except to actually cite those opinions?

I do agree with you in that I do not care for this particular piece as it's brief, generally uninformative, and includes a crapload of readers' comments that are generally useless. However, I think that we're going to have get used to modern, Internet-based resources having and allowing readers' comments and criticism. It's not ideal for linking in an encyclopedia article but it is what it is.

Based on all of that, I don't mind the source being used but I would prefer the wording surrounding it be changed to more accurately reflect the precise source. --ElKevbo 02:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My reading is that Ben Kuchera runs the Opposable Thumbs Journal on http://arstechnica.com/journals.ars which has four journals.

Welcome to Journals.ars, Ars Technica's topic-oriented commentarius maximus. Ars Journals cover a variety of topics in an insightful, fun, and oftentimes irreverent way, with a laid back style befitting the fuzzy hats and gaudy jewelry our writers wear under contract. Join us as we follow the tech and trends pulsating around the 'net.

So it would not be just a comment on a web forum, so I think it would be a reliable source. It seems to support the commonly accepted view of Derek Smart within the gaming industry. I think that Cardinal2 has a good point that it may apply better to the "Online controversy" section since it seems to support the idea that Mr. Smart is better known for his controversial public persona rather than his game development. Bill Huffman 02:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Whose commonly accepted view would that be? A group of persons on the internet who on a good day wouldn't pass the WP:RS or WP:V muster? Since when does a ground of people from any walk of life represent the entire sect of people? And from what empirical evidence do you derive the information that this is a generally accepted view of this guy? A guy who, from his website, has done many games, has been in many, many reviews, interviews etc. And you're trying to push a pov that he is generally a negatively regarded person? From that deduction, we might as well start pointing the finger at every public figure, starting with our very own President of the US. So a bunch of people don't like the guy. The guy is abrasive, rude even, but from WHERE are you deriving this commonly accepted view? You're not in the industry. You're not even a gamer. Or do you think that the editors on this Wiki page are idiots who will just take for granted the posted of an alleged celebrity stalker? From what I've read in the archives about you and seeing the Usenet postings you made about this guy, you are doing exactly what you and your friends were doing on Usenet. Don't you have better things to do with your time? A job perhaps? Why obssess over one person and for so long (from what I've read, it is going on more than ten years now). You need to understand this, the only place so far that there has been any kind of controversy is on Usenet and a few forum postings. Neither of which passes the muster of being included in a Wiki article that is PROTECTED by WP:BLP guidelines. 63.44.66.100 14:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear anon, you attack me for saying that Mr. Smart is very well known for abrasive rude behavior demanding to know how I could possibly come to such a conclusion, demanding proof for my position and then yourself admit that he is abrasive and rude. Then you make all kinds of personal attacks against me as if you are trying to prove that you yourself can exhibit rude abrasive behavior. Well you convinced me, congratulations! What is the proper way to report an anon that is exhibiting rude and abrasive behavior? Bill Huffman 15:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be at Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard - Ehheh 16:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank you again, WarHawkSP, for discussing your edits. I think your opinion is important and it lets other editors better understand your thoughts and rational. I firmly believe that it will lead to improving the Derek Smart article. Good job and Thank you, Bill Huffman 02:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

One minute you are thanking him, the next you are calling him a sock puppet. You swing in whatever direction suits your purpose. 63.44.66.100 14:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is true. My purpose is the truth and making a good article. The WP process can work very well and produce excellent articles. It requires communication and the expressing of one's opinion. It breaks down when all a party does is play revert wars. WarHawk/Supreme_Cmdr both have a tendency to just make changes or reverts without communicating. Instead of trying to convince other editors with communication they try to wikilawyer and edit war and play a game of attrition. Just wear out the other editors until the other editors give up. I think that if we can try to encourage them to communicate and cooperate then it will make everyone more productive and stop this vicious cycle of edit warring, blocking, banning, and anon attacks that we're currently in. Unfortunately, the only alternative to the edit war that we might really have is deleting this article altogether. Thank you, Bill Huffman 15:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What is important in the ars technica article, is that it reflects the general opinion among the notables in the gaming community with regard to Smart. The article is published by a reputed website, its author Ben Kuchera is a notable and reputed personality. So it confirms to WP:RS. It is the article which is important. WarhawkSP has not shown the relevant paragraph in WP:RS which it does not conform to and is keeping on evading the issue and substituting rhtoric for facts.

No it doesn't. It is an opinion rendered by one person and a nobody at that. Not someone who was speaking for the publication or it won't be in a blog. 63.44.66.100 14:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you do some research before calling people a "nobody". Ben Kuchera is a prominent personality at Ars technica, who has reviewed several prominent products like the Play station 3 [15] . Please do not insult people and stay focussed on facts.Kerr avon 14:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody cares who he is. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. What we do care about is that you cannot cite an opinion and pass is as fact. Lets not get into the whole thing about a blog, Usenet, forum post etc do not pass the WP:RS policy nor the clear guidelines governing what can and cannot be included in a WP:BLP article. You just want it included because it casts a negative and derogatory light on Smart. This has been your goal all along since coming here. This cite will never be allowed to stand because consensus cannot trump policy. Deal with it. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Opposing Thumbs item cannot be included. Apart from it not being an official article or editorial it violates WP:BLP specifically the Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material. btw, I can't sign in from work so this is anon. Will edit after work when I get home. 16:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your inability to sign in from work, but I'd appreciate it if you could mention your username somewhere inside your comment. Four different anons have commented on this talk page, and it's kind of hard to keep track of them all; in fact, I'm not entirely sure who you actually are. Your comments and writing style are similar to WarHawkSP's, however, and comments from your IP address have only appeared after he was blocked; this is somewhat...suspicious. Cardinal2 19:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree here. The first edit for the user was, indeed, a little like Warhawk, but past that I could see that it was not. Of course, just my opinion. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes; in hindsight, you're right. He says he used to be an admin, and he actually links or quotes to specific subsections within WP policy. But I wish I could place a name to the IP. Cardinal2 20:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In light of the link just having been removed (presumably again), does anyone have a link to the actual content? I'm not familiar with the Ars Technica website and all I see are the comments. dfg 04:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

They have since removed Ben's comments. Obviously due to the fact that his comments were not reflective of the site's views. Which is EXACTLY what myself and others have been saying all along and the reason we removed that cite to begin with. Thats what happens when you go spouting off at the mouth with stupid comments which serve no purpose other than to incite animosity toward another person for no plausible reason. And when you do that against a notable and popular industry figure like Derek Smart, well, you have to deal with the flak that ensues. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 04:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

All the opposable thumbs entries from 2006 seem to be the same: comments only. Looks like a bug in the archives or a deliberate purge of older material - there's no evidence that this particular entry was singled out. Ehheh 18:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah OK. That might be it then. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto what Ehheh just said. Also, a quick check of the AT journal page shows that Ben Kuchera wrote a journal entry on Feb. 10. If the article in question was as bad as SC is making it out to be, wouldn't he have been reprimanded by the Ars Technica editors? It doesn't appear that this is the case. Cardinal2 18:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

wtf are you talking about? Do you even know what you're talking about? I never said anything about what Ben wrote being good or bad. His comments were his and not reflective of an Ars Technica article. He didn't write an article. He made an entry in his blog and put the comment there. The point has always been that his comments fail WP:RS and WP:BLP and thus do not belong in the Wiki. The fact that his comment is no longer visible is just another reason to not include it. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 18:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

After mentioning the Ars Technica article, you refer to "stupid comments which serve no purpose other than animosity" against Derek Smart. I figured you were still referring to the AT article; your reply above indicates that is not the case, and you were in fact referring to this talk page. If you read your comment over, I think that you'd agree that it could be interpreted both ways. Cardinal2 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

SC, there's no point in harassing anyone any longer - as if there ever was - with statements like "wtf are you talking about?". The decision is now in the hands of the ArbCom. I invite you to just step back, take a deep breath, and wait. Cardinal2 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

See the "Current Projects" section of the following version. I note that the link there no longer seems to reference Ben's comment. It appears that it may instead just contain some forum comments on Ben's comment. Bill Huffman 04:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFc on Derek Smart

[edit] Request for Comment: Derek Smart page

This is a dispute about adding controversial material which violates Wiki WP:RS and WP:BLP policies.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Since this Wiki was openened, several sections have been hotly contested. During the edit waring several editors either left in digust or were banned due to 3RR violations.

The issue over Derek Smart's Ph.D. has been the topic of [ one man's] vendetta against Derek Smart for [ almost ten years]. This person Bill Huffman, (discussed here) has now joined in the edit fray in an attempt to turn this Wiki into the same battleground that was Usenet. Several of his cohorts have also now joined in the fray in an attempt to push their pov-pushing consensus in this Wiki. By doing so, they use their strength in numbers to pov-push and taint this person's Wiki.

There is no WP:RS source that makes any claim that Derek Smart's Ph.D. is fraudulent or otherwise non-existent. Yet, they are trying to once again push this agenda because the inclusion of Bill Huffman's libelous site was rejected in this Wiki for the same WP:RS reasons.

One of them went ahead and created a hidden section within the page and in violation of Wiki WP:BLP policy on controversial material.

Also, they tend to use forum posts (e.g. the Opposing Thumbs forum link on Ars Technica) to inject degrogatory pov-pushing material which clearly violates WP:RS and WP:BLP.

If this allowed to continue, this Wiki will contain nothing but violations and pov-pushing material.

12:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• From the history and diffs it is quite clear that pov-pushing is rampant on this page. This recent push to shove policy violating links (e.g. Opposing Thumbs commentary, Werewolves site, a non-existent and uncited (fails WP:RS with no questions needed on that) Ph.D. claim is an example of what happens when you only have one side attempting to push a consensus. I note that a lot of editors of this page have stopped editing. The reason for that is quite clear. As an example, I have yet to see a single edit by users Bill Huffman or Kerr Avon that is not pov-pushing or relevant to the article. 209.214.22.231 16:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• What exactly is your purpose here? From what I can tell you are only here to harrass other editors because either you feel that they are Derek Smart sock puppets or that they are Derek Smart supporters. From what I have read thus far, you are really a sick, sick person. The man no longer posts on Usenet. Now you come to a Wiki about him to harrass others trying to create an accurate and informative WP:BLP article of him? And with all that you have done thus far, including your repeated WP:NPA violations you are not banned, reprimanded or otherwise warned? Isn't that what what the fellow about is talking about? Tell me, how can you prove from an IP address that someone is a sock puppet? You cannot. So you're just violating WP:NPA and attempting to harrass and intimidate others. Don't you think that someone smart enough and who can be bothered to use a sockpuppet would know how to use five tilde characters to suppress their IP address? So if anyone posts from a bellsouth IP they are now a sock puppet? Do you know the IP address of these persons you are accusing of being sock puppets? 63.44.66.100 13:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rarely have I seen a greater collection of incorrect statements in such an incendiary manner as the above post. Huffman's never edited the article itself and many of his contributions have been rebuked by myself and others. There's very little to no harassment or intimidation going on here except from WarhawkSP. There is the strongest possible circumstantial evidence linking Derek Smart/WarhawkSP and Supreme_Cmdr. The only stronger evidence would be an admission. --Jeff 14:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Whats rare about it? You are the one making incorrect statements. Just because he doesn't edit the article doesn't mean that he can't use the talk pages to influence pov-pushing editors such as yourself, Kerr and others whose sole purpose seems to inject negative and WP:V violating material into the Wiki. I note that WarHawkSP got banned for an edit conflict which just so happens that the admin didn't use better judgement in determining that from a 3RR. Why? Because others who were never a party to this have now chimed in that both of the items that WarHawkSP was removing did in fact violate policy. You guys already knew that they did in fact violate policy but you still tried to push them through. And then trapped him in a 3RR violation when one of you went and reported it. That is not good faith editing but rather is intimidation and underhanded tactics used to get rid of editors who do not share your views.14:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC) The preceding unsigned comment with the IP removed was made from IP address 63.44.66.100Kerr avon 14:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all Huffman has not edited the article and he is quite within wiki guidelines to contribute to the talk page. Secondly there was a long suspicion that Supreme_Cmdr was Smart and that WarhawkSP was his sock puppet as they both contain his abrasive and unique style of social interaction which mad him notable. Derek Smart is known to use a bell south IP address in his postings, and the fact that Supreme_Cmdr and WarhawkSP has the same ISP is very suspicious indeed. The probabilities are very low that a normal bellsouth ISP customer would be interested in edit warring solely on this very article in the wikipedia with a biased POV towards glorifying Smart other than Smart himself with his sock puppets included too.Kerr avon 14:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Given your views on Smart and the items you try to push through on the Wiki, I can see how you would say this about Huffman. The point of fact is that he has not been abiding to Wiki guidelines. If he was, there won't be any WP:WPA attacks by him, pushing of WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP violating discussions let alone attempts to push them past policy. If anything you could be accused of being a Huffman sock puppet seeing that you and him arrived here a short while ago and have so far done nothing but try to push negative and derogatory items into the Wiki. Your other Wiki edits are minimal at best and anyone with half a brain and two brain cells can easily see that those edits by you are an attempt to steer opinions away from a WP:SPA violation. As to the ISP issue, thats just laughable I don't even know where to begin. Truly so. Bellsouth is THE largest ISP in the US. So does it not stand to reason that any two people could have the same ISP? Guess who my ISP is? 63.44.66.100 14:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wow you are surprisingly up to date on everything given you just came into this discussion today. How did you read so much and pick up right where Warhawk and Supreme Cmdr left off? Amazing. Specifically, in the case involving Smart, his host is fll.bellsouth.net. The FLL part is the important bit, because it is fort lauderdale's demarcation for bellsouth. the IP address you are posting from is a uu.net address out of san francisco, but i suspect it's a proxy or something. --Jeff 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• WarHawkSP, I consider your characterization of the werewolves site as libelous to be inaccurate and a violation of WP:NPA. Please see my response and request for you to provide a shred of evidence that supports your false claim Talk:Derek_Smart#New_Improved_Werewolves.27_Site Although I do agree with your position that Usenet information is inheritantly unreliable, this is exemplified very well by your link above. I also note that you linked to Usenet posts that weren't by me supposedly about evidence that alleges something about me. This is unlike Mr. Smart where Mr. Smart's own posts only are being used to show examples as to what Mr. Smart was claiming. Sigh, Bill Huffman 16:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request For Page Protection

Since you folks want to use strength in numbers in order to pov-push this Wiki and violate Wiki policy, I have filed a request for page protection. WarHawkSP 13:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I've filed a 3RR request, since you have reverted the page 6 times in the past 24 hours. It might be wise of you to revert yourself back as a recognition of your mistake. But that's just my opinion. Nandesuka 13:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's no mistake. He's been informed already at the 4th revert on his talk page. I've filed a notice at WP:AN/I since it's his second 3RR violation and as a single purpose account, I requested a community block. Oh and by the way WarHawk, you need to stop claiming that other editors are violating wikipedia policy if they are not in fact doing so. Tendentious edit warring doesn't help your cause. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 13:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usenet posts inherently unreliable

[edit] Coke Machine alleged incident not subsequent release

I believe that the alleged coke machine attack happened prior to the actual release of the game. Bill Huffman 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That can be your own opinion. However cited content from a WP:RS gamespy disagrees with that. Unless we can find a WP:RS to substantiate your claims lets leave it as it is. Kerr avon 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Huffman is correct and the April 2001 CGW article backs him up on that. Or didn't you read it? 63.28.69.164 22:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The discussion isn't over (Re:Usenet)

Of course, unless dishonest and single-minded users start locking down discussions with archive tags simply because people aren't agreeing with him. What excatly is the point of archiving a discussion when the last comment made was put up 15 minutes before the archive happened...and left unanswered? What's more, what's the point in lying about the outcome of the "archived" discussion when someone can just read it for themselves? No consensus was reached; if anything the opinion was leaning in the direction opposite what the discussion starter believed, and as a result he archived the thread, gave a false summary, and when I attempted to reopen it to allow the unresolved issue to still be debated, he re-archived it.

Well, that's neither here nor there. I won't resort to an edit war when someone is so clearly wrong. I don't need to. The consensus was reached here. It was agreed upon by the overwhelming majority that, while in most cases Usenet isn't a truly reliable source, it is in fact a primary source when it comes to discussions of events that transpired on Usenet. Therefore, it is the best source possible on the subject. And that is truly what is at hand here. "Did this happen on Usenet?" The straw man that Hipocrite smacked around in his "archive" summary was that we were attempting to use Usenet as a reliable source when it came to the validity of Smart's degree. That is not true. All that is being said is:

• Smart used to sign his name as "Derek Smart, Ph.D." in both Usenet posts and in other correspondence.
• People on Usenet began a discussion of the details of Smart's claimed degree.
• Some time after that, Smart acknowledged in various ways that his degree was unaccredited.

And that's it. We have listed the Usenet posts and correspondence mentioned in the first part, shown that the posts and correspondence were almost certainly Smart's, shown that the Usenet discussion happened, and shown where the conclusion of the matter was that Smart said his degree was unaccredited.

These events happened, they are WP:NPOV, they are verified, and they have consensus. Anyone else have a problem with this? Or shall I wait 15 minutes, declare consensus reached, and start editing to suit my whims? ;)

Mael-Num 21:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I may have missed something. Can you point me to the WP:RS and WP:V sources in which Smart said his degree was unaccredited? Are they WP:BLP compliant? If so, then most certainly it should be added that Derek Smart claims to have a Ph.D. from an unaccredited institution. As long as its not a Usenet posting, and does not violate policy, I don't see what the big deal is really. 63.28.69.164 22:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on all points ... except "Smart used to sign his name as 'Derek Smart, Ph.D.' in both Usenet posts and in other correspondence." We cannot verifiably claim that it was Derek Smart, the man, who posted the Usenet articles. I'm not being argumentative; I am truly interested in how to include this notable material without breaking any policies. "A poster claiming to be Derek Smart"? Something similar? - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Or is there something to cite that ties Smart to those posts? - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Totaly not acceptable. I could write "some one purporting to be Nuggetboy said that Nuggetboy died last night," and then go sign up for a altopia account and write a post purporting to be from you saying you died. Usenet is not reliable. Additionally, "Some time after that, Smart acknowledged in various ways that his degree was unaccredited," has not been reliably sourced. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Smart has never denied making the USENET posts. They are signed with his official signature, and if someone else has been posting all those years, all Smart would have to do would be to deny it. Since Smart has not denied posting those messages, and USENET headers match Smart's prior postings, and since there is no evidence to prove that is was not Smart who made the postings, it is valid to use a NPOV with USENET cites.Kerr avon 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Usenet is not a reliable source for matters of fact that are not about usenet, period. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been proven that Derek Smart (Game Developer) and Derek Smart (Usenet poster/flamer) are the same people. It has been proven therefore that the vast majority of posts claiming to be Derek Smart in the Usenet flame war is in fact Derek Smart. This does not prove that any particular post claiming to come from Derek Smart is really from Derek. Although, Hipocrites example of a Nuggetboy post would not be possible within the whole framework of the Usenet Flamewar but I think his point has merit and agrees with the point that I was trying to make. On the other hand, I could reference, for example, that Mr. Smart claimed a Ph.D. based on his posts in the flame war because that claim is made in almost every post he made. Going beyond that bit of information would be problematic but might be possible someday with the approval of WP:ATT#Questionable_or_self-published_sources Says that Self published material, e.g., Usenet posts, may be used

Questionable or self-published sources in articles about their authors

Material from questionable or self-published sources must be relevant to the article's subject, whose notability must be established with information from third-party sources, and must be in a field in which the author is considered authoritative — for example, it is usually acceptable to use biographical details from a self-published source. The material:

should not be contentious or unduly self-serving;

must not be used to support claims about topics not directly related to the source or about third parties.

So then Mr. Smart's Usenet posts might be applicable as sources. Bill Huffman 05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That a person does not deny something does not verify that fact. Is there any WP:RS out there that has him claiming he posted these articles or recanted on his PhD signature? - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Smart never said, AFAIK, that he doesn't have a PhD. He has never recanted that claim. What he recanted was that it was from an accredited institution. Bill Huffman 05:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What we can state is that "Official correspondence from Smart is signed "Derek Smart Ph.D". Smart's claims have lead to heated USENET discussions involving Smart with regard to the validity of his doctorate.", and link in a appropriate thread. That will enable us to be NPOV.Kerr avon 22:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Better than linking the thread is linking the reliable source. From the last good version of the article - "Derek Smart is a notorious online personality who in the past has been engaged in various controversal discussions on Usenet and game forums ranging from his games to his degree. Smart has publically claimed the title of Ph.D. in official communications[18] . Smart's perceived pretention became the object of sufficient ridicule that it was eventually lampooned by Gamespy's "Daily Victim"[19].

Unless it is sourced and passes WP:RS, you can't link to it. WP:BLP guidelines are quite clear on what can and cannot be added in a Wiki article. So no, Usenet posts, whether by Smart, a known Usenet stalker or anyone else for that matter, cannot be relied upon. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unecessary reverts

User:Mael-Num Please do not unecessary remove cited content. If you do not agree with certain info please discuss rather than deleting it. Please clarify your edit statement "Don't add information that is still up for debate. Also, don't say that you're editing one thing, and stealth edit something else signifcant."

Anyone can add any information which is cited that is wikipedia policy. Whether the information should be allowed to stand or be removed should be on a consensus. What did you mean about "stealth editing"?. Kerr avon 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, the information you're trying to add is malicious and uncited. Thus it fails WP:BLP. Apart from that, CGW (the same mag who reported the original unsubstantiated story back in 1996) in their April 2001 face to face interview (that is linked to in the article) with Smart states clearly that they spoke to a Take Two employee and he verified that the incident did not happen. I quote "Online legend has Derek attacking a Coke machine at this point, which he denies to this day (and an email from a former Take Two employee backs him up on this point)." So CGW did in fact research that incident and obtained verification from a former Take Two employee (obviously someone who was there). So what exactly is your point with this, other than to continue trying to pov push negative items into the Wiki? 63.28.69.164 22:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. Strongly recommend you carefully read this WP:BLP section. Or allow me to elucidate: insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Therefore, I am insisting that you demonstrate a relevence to Derek Smart's notability. I also insist that you show how this admittedly contested report of hearsay is, in fact, reliable. Remember, WP:BLP articles must be held to the highest standards. Per WikiMedia's founder and chairman, Jimbo Wales:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively...Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."

Therefore, the ball is now in your court. Independently verify this contested report of hearsay, then show how it is relevant enough to our picture of "Derek Smart:The Man" that we should include it. Mael-Num 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The coke machine incident is a famous incident regarding Smart and parodies of it have been created in the internet. It is notable enough for gamespy to mention it in their 25 dumbest moments of gaming with regard to batllecruiser 3000ad[20], and it is notable enough for it to be mentioned in a computer gaming world interview [21] with Smart himself. WP:BLP does not state that critical commentary regarding a person can not be made if it is properly cited. Since we have a properly cited information from a WP:RS regarding both the notability of the incident and the incident per se I see no reason to classify it as heresay.

Dude do you actually believe the stuff you're writing? The issue is not notable because it is heresay at the very least and the CGW article proves that!! 63.28.69.164 22:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is not notable, then why has gamespy mentioned it in there analaysis of the batllecruiser game, if it is not notable why has CGW mentioned it in Smart's interview. Please understand that there is no solid evidence to prove that the coke machine assault was heresay. It is a fact associated prominently with Smart so much so that even when interviewers talk to Smart they mention the coke machine controversy. In Smart's bio we have remained neutral, we have mentioned about a alleged coke machine assault and mentioned that Smart and a single take two employee deny it.Kerr avon 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You are coming dangerously close to outright lies. The "evidence" that the coke machine "assault" (assault?!) was hearsay is that the author says it was at best a disputed rumor. You do understand that's what hearsay is, right? So, if the author says he was reporting hearsay, who are you to argue with him? The article also doesn't provide proper scope or weight. Did Smart destroy the machine, or just angrily manipulate the coin return? How many people saw this happen? Did they actually see it happen, or did they hear about it at the water cooler? You don't know, because the author doesn't know, because it's a rumor. Citing that the rumor happened, and other people picked up on it isn't noteworthy at all. Add to that the fact that other sources (citing primary sources) said that the rumor was false, and you're bordering on libel. Even if it doesn't cross the line, it has no place here. Mael-Num 23:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The ars technica link, which is NPOV worded IMHO,serves to illustrate to gaming communities perception of Smart. When Smart announces his intention to create a xbox title, Ben Kuchera writes a article criticising him due to Smart's controversial nature and lasting inability to design a good game. Ben Kuchera is a prominent editor at Ars. Smart is notable because of his controversial nature, as such the ars link too ranks as valid for his bio.Kerr avon 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO the Ars Technica article should be removed because it does not pass the WP:BLP muster either. Surprising that you added that one too? 63.28.69.164 22:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear "anon", just like WarhawkSp and supreme_Cmdr (whose writing style is suspiciously similar to yours), you talk a lot about WP:BLP, but fail to mention under which clause it does not pass. Please clarify, it is my personal view that a request should be made to the admins to have this talk page semi protected to prevent edits by blocked users like WarhawkSP/SC under possibile anonymous proxies.Kerr avon 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the old sock puppet WP:NPA attack when someone doesn't agree with you or because they are anon. Personal attack removed most of us value our privacy and thats why there are anon accounts. Are you posting under your real name? No. Why is that? Simple. Because you want the benefit of anonymity. The only difference between you and I is that I choose not to create an account. So what? If that was such as serious offense, Wiki would not allow anon accounts. But anyway, Personal attack removed I strongly recommend you carefully read this WP:BLP section. 63.28.69.164 23:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Going to move foward towards a consensus:

---

Therefore the issue has been put forth, and for purposes of consensus, please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the following two statements.

The article elements related to Derek Smart's alleged vandalism of a soda machine, which was reported second-hand by a single cited news magazine and disputed by at least one Employee and Derek Smart himself, is from a reliable source. It is necessary to include it because it shows proper criticism of Derek Smart and comes from a NPOV.

• Disagree: A few people saying that Derek Smart attacking a soda machine doesn't make it significant or reliable. If the issue is contested, and the one reliable source admits the article is hearsay, then you've got to reject the article. Even in the event that he did punch a soda machine -- who cares? I've punched soda machines, and I would argue that the vast majority of people have punched soda machines (particularly when they take my money or are out of soda). Does this make Smart more or less significant, or does it merely reflect gaming mags' penchant for gossip mongering on slow news days? Mael-Num 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account Mael-Num (Mael-Num|talk • Mael-Num|contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Disagree: The post above is more eloquent than anything else that I could possibly type. 63.28.69.164 23:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Poor question: SOURCES DO NOT HAVE TO BE POV. That is a fundamental and flawed misunderstanding of Wikipedia and the NPOV policy. Further, the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --ElKevbo 23:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...when someone asks "please indicate your agreement or disagreement" and you respond in ALLCAPS that the question is flawed, and that the poster's understanding is flawed, and diverge on a tangent that threatens to derail the whole point of the survey, then yes, I would say the response is inappropriate to the point of vandalism. There are better ways to seek clarification, or to correct or otherwise make comment. Mael-Num 01:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Poor response. Articles don't necessarily have to be POV, but that's not the point. See below, and please don't further vandalize. I'll leave your responses as-is for now.Mael-Num 00:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalize? Alright, fuck this. You folks can have your article back. I no longer care to participate in this discussion. Best of luck. --ElKevbo 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Agree: The coke machine incident is a famous incident regarding Smart and parodies of it have been created in the internet. It is notable enough for several WP:RS Gamespy to mention it in their 25 dumbest moments of gaming with regard to battlecruiser 3000ad[22], and it is notable enough for it to be mentioned by the interviewer in a computer gaming world interview [23] with Smart himself. WP:BLP does not state that critical commentary regarding a person can not be made if it is properly cited. Both Gamespy and Computer gaming world are reliable sources WP:RS. The current wording mentions regarding the assault and the fact that Smart has denied it, and as such it is cited from reliable sources and is NPOV worded and should be kept. If reliable sources portray a person in a poor light there are no wikipedia guidlines saying that such information should be excluded.Kerr avon 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree The coke machine incident should not be included. If this bio was going to be 20 pages long then it might be worth the necessary setup to allow inclusion from the point of view that it is part of the Derek Smart legend. I don't think it is important enough to go into an encyclopedia bio. Bill Huffman 02:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree: First, the alleged incident is totally unencyclopedic. Ignoring that, I know of no reliable source for this factoid. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree: Though tt could be reliably established that Smart is infamous for this apocraphal(sp) incident, I see no reason to include it in an encyclopedia entry.--Beaker342 05:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree: Urban legends, especially those proven to have been refuted, have no basis in a WP:BLP article. WarHawkSP 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Disagree: This is a non-issue because not only was it reported by a third party without any basis of fact, it was also refuted by the same magazine that first reported it. This is nothing more than an urban legend and as such fails WP:BLP. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The article elements related to the Ars Technica is both WP:NPOV and does not violate WP:BLP. The article reflects the gaming community's perception of Smart. Ben Kuchera speaks with authority on the matter of Derek Smart's efforts to develop a title for the X-Box 360. This article is a reflection of Kuchera's expertise and authority on the subject.

• Disagree I have no idea who Ben Kuchera or Ars Technica are. I read what I consider to be more reliable sources, like GameSpot or Tom's Hardware. Ars Technica isn't even on my radar, but be that as it may, the author is clearly being humorous (something I might turn to Something Awful for) on a subject that's easily recognized: Derek Smart. It may be humorous or popular to paint Smart as a ranting, raving, incompetant buffoon, but it is neither neutral nor correct. We should not force readers to this conclusion; it wouldn't be fair. Mael-Num 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account Mael-Num (Mael-Num|talk • Mael-Num|contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Disagree: The author's comment fails the this WP:BLP section test and thus should not be included. This one is a slam dunk. 63.28.69.164 23:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Poor question: Sources do not have to be NPOV. BLP does not require us to only portray persons in a positive light. If reliable sources portray a person in a poor light then it's not necessary that we exclude that source on those grounds. And that some Wikipedia editors have not heard of this person doesn't really mean anything. --ElKevbo 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment No one said anything of the sort. Stop trying to disrupt the conversation with straw man arguments. Mael-Num 00:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Mael_Num Since you like wikipedia guidlines I would suggest that you read up on WP:CIVIL, you already have been warned regarding your behavior on your talk page.Kerr avon 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agree: Ars technica is a prominent technological website as quoted by wikipedia itself. Ben Kuchera is a notable individual at Ars technica who has reviewed several prominent products like the PlayStation 3 [24]. Hence he has authority. This response by him critical of Smart's intention to develop for the xbox is a reflection of the gaming communities perception of Smart as a hot mouth developer who is known for the said hot mouth rather than his game developing ability. The Freespace controversy on the Derek Smart article also is a example of the gaming communities perception regarding Smart. When Smart said he wanted to develop the Freespace, it caused a uproar as people thought that he will ruin the franchise.Kerr avon 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agree, sorta: I have to agree with ElKevbo that the Kuchera cite does not have to be NPOV. Also, whether or not he speaks with authority I'm not sure is important as it's an opinion piece and should be cited as such. However, no problem with the inclusion as long as there is a balance of positive opinion cites. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agree: Criticisms do not have to be npov as long as they are from reliable sources. I am unsure of the authority of the site and author, and the article is a little short on substance, but I don't see any reason why not to include it as long as the article as a whole doesn't become nothing but an attack piece. --Beaker342 05:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agree: I think the Ars technica reference is acceptable. The primary reason I think it is okay is because it is regarding an early announcement by Mr. Smart. So the reference is acceptable for two reason, IMHO, first because there probably isn't going to be a better reference on an early announcement from a small independent developer. Second, because Mr. Smart is an small independent developer it is good to put the early announcement in context that this is far from a done deal, we don't want to give people a false impression as to how likely it actually is since many similar announcements have been made in the past and nothing coming of them is far more common than something being released. (P.S. Sorry I put my previous vote in the wrong place.) (Note I voted this way despite the risk of inciting an anon of accusing me of devouring kittens then vomiting so that I can then devour some puppies.) Regards, Bill Huffman 07:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree: That is not an official Ars Technica feed. It is a somewhat malicious personal opinion by an editor on his blog and does not reflect the opinions of the publication. The rules of WP:BLP clearly forbid this and a higher standard of editing is required for such an article. WarHawkSP 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Disagree: Ben is not writing on behalf of Ars Technica. Also, he made a comment which violates WP:BLP guidelines and thus cannot be allowed. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My last edit's explanation was truncated...

Per WP:VANDAL:

Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.

Having advised the editor who added the items in question that his additions violate Wikipedia policy, he proceeded to engage in edit warring rather than discuss it until I forced the discussion. Now that a discussion has happened, it has been shown that the consensus is that these additions are inappropriate and violate a number of Wikipedia policies (see section immediately above). The only reason why I am not outright deleting these additions, per consensus, is that I would prefer to allow other posters more time to contribute to the debate. As mentioned before, any further reverts of the commented out sections will be considered vandalism, per "gaming the system" under "revert warring" in WP:VANDAL. They will be summarily reverted, and in addition, I can see no other course than reporting the vandal to the admins. Mael-Num 01:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has not been there for more than a few hours yet you make assumtions that "it has been shown that the consensus is that these additions are inappropriate and violate a number of Wikipedia policies", and only three people have participated so far. So please do not come to comclusion wrongly and let the debate continue. I am reverting the article as per swatjester, and if you revert it back or do so with your own consensus I will report you to the admins.Kerr avon 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus thus far IS that these additions don't belong here. Most people agree with my argument, therefore that's a consensus. So why do you take it upon yourself to edit with no respect paid towards your fellow editors? I'd recommend you explain yourself here. Mael-Num 02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ehm, your attitude of deletions shows no respect to your fellow editors either. If you just allowed that sourced edits to stand while we had a discussion instead of trying to push your POV, then we could have had a good discussion. How can you claim a consensus when the only parties involved are yourself and a anonymous editor who is suspect to be either Smart/WarhawkSP/Supreme_Cmdr editing out of a proxy. The fact that you claim a consensus on those grounds shows your bias, also your edits show that you are a probably SPA too.Kerr avon

Ehm, I guess I should add WP:NPA to your RFC. Not only am I clearly not a SPA, but you're attacking everyone who disagrees with you, accusing them of being Derek Smart. You're also misrepresenting the facts at hand. I have acknowledged and sought the consensus, especially in the face of those who seem to want to steamroll right over it. I'd recommend you calm down and stop lashing out at people, imcluding me. Mael-Num 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We really need to calm down and stop revert warring. Getting rid of SupremeComdr/WarHawk doesn't seem to have had the beneficial impact on the process that it should have had, as editors are still revert warring and swinging WP policies around like sledghammers in precisely the same ways that made SC/WH such an intolerable editor. Come on people! --Beaker342 01:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

At first, I was going to signal my intent to comply by saying "I'm coming!", but in hindsight, that might be taken the wrong way. Oh wait. What I mean to say is that I'd like to stop the fighting and just discuss, but people (despite knowing that this is a hotly contested subject as it plainly says at the top of the talk page) feel like they are entitled to throw in whatever negative comment they can dredge up from the handy list of colorful articles at the bottom of the page, throw in a citation number, and then expect to hide behind Wikipedia policies that were meant to encourage inclusive peer behavior, but not abuse of living people bordering on libel. I don't know how much more plainly I could put it. This sort of behavior is abusive; there is no reason to editorialize or to render other editorials' opinions, no matter the source. That's editorial by proxy, and it's cowardly, and hiding behind your personal interpretation of some cherry-picked Wiki rules won't change that plain fact. Mael-Num 03:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Filed

Regarding edit warring. If you'd care to weigh in on the subject, you may find the page here. Mael-Num 02:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary and Criticism of Smart

Much of recent debate on this page seems to be over perceived anti-Smart bias in the opinions reported in the article. I disagree with those that seem to be of the opinion that we are not allowed to report anything critical of Smart in the article. WP:BLP clearly allows for the inclusion of criticism, as long as it is sourced and does not give undue weight to those criticisms. I wonder if we might make a better effort to include some praise of Smart and his games in the articles so that instead of bickering over what criticism should be included we simply tell both sides of the story. This doesn't mean it has to be 50/50, since as I see it, most of what has been written about Smart is critical of his games and online demeanor. However, I don't see enough praise in the article right now for the ambitiousness of his games and his committment to patching them. --Beaker342 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy the sentiment of your post. It is true to Wikipedia's standards of quality and it should be what we try to do. However, I spent at least 5 hours of my time going over the entire article re-writing it a week or so ago. I looked at every citation and also found new ones to include. There is a great dearth of positive articles about Derek Smart. I came into this subject completely without knowledge of the man and of the game genre history and consider myself fair and impartial, although I am quite certain some people will disagree as the result of my research into the subject, presented the evidence as I found it written at various online games magazines and usenet postings made by Smart. So, while I'd love to include positive things, I imagine we would have a fair amount of trouble finding WP:V and WP:RS material to cite, while we have plenty of WP:V and WP:RS information to cite for various incidents and other perceived criticism.--Jeff 04:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to include normal bio things like age/marriage/children etc but I don't know of any reliable sources. Bill Huffman 04:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you would think that. Given your past activities on Usenet and delving into his personal life, here you are again trying to use this Wiki and its editors to further your obvious obsession with this man. WarHawkSP 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your ridiculous violations of WP:NPA. I never delved into Mr.Smart's personal life. I delved into Mr. Smart's academic fraud. The context of this section was, "What can we do to make Mr. Smart appear more human and likeable?" Thank you for pointing out the utter frutility of such an idea. Trying to make Mr. Smart appear more likeable would obviously be a gross injustice to the accuracy of Wikipedia and I wish to thank you for nipping that silly idea in the bud before things got out of hand. Shame on all of us. Bill Huffman 03:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be great too. I only found one good source of personal info and that is here "Derek Smart: I decided to continue the series because I had invested a good portion of my life into it. I had lost a lot of my early life, gone through a divorce, quit pursuing other interests, and literally had isolated myself from everything. So, it was a part of me -- you never forget that first time, and as such, you just keep reliving it. It's like a bad episode of Groundhog Day. " I'd love to include info about where he was born and date of birth.--Jeff 04:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The CGW article mentions a fiancee and a daughter, but nothing very concrete.--Beaker342 04:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Smart, like most celebs, does not make it a habit to discuss his personal life in the public. Especially after Huffman and his friends tried and failed to locate his daughter back on Usenet. AFAIK, he has been married, divorced and has a daughter. No other information (public or cited) is available that can be concrete and used in a WP:BLP Wiki. WarHawkSP 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

WarhawkSP, do you believe the nonsense that you write? This is another violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Please stop, Bill Huffman 03:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not a violation. Especially if its true. Do you not consider your accusing someone of academic fraud - without a shred of evidence not to mention WP:RS requirements - a violation? There are already posted Usenet posts made by YOU in which you are not only discussing locating his daughter, but also claiming that he doesnt have one, given your own reasons why not etc. There is also that incident with the kid you sent out to locate where Smart lived. In other words you took your online stalking into the real world and had the kid arrested and a restraining order filed against him. Thers is no secret here and you can hardly deny something that is widely known. You only use your perceived Ph.D. fraud as a cover to harrass and stalk him. The posts going back to 1996 and way before his Ph.D. became a issue to you, prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.WarHawkSP 08:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your assertion "Do you not consider your accusing someone of academic fraud - without a shred of evidence not to mention WP:RS requirements - a violation?" there is plenty of evidence and it was not an invasion of privacy. Mr. Smart claimed a PhD in almost every post he made. That makes his claim public knowledge and everyone's PhD is already public knowledge because each one is supposed to push back the frontier of human knowledge so they are all public except for Mr. Smart's. Mr. Smart doesn't even seem to realize that if the dissertation is secret then it is not part of academic knowledge. This makes very convincing evidence that Mr. Smart was/is an academic fraud. He claimed his Ph.D. was accredited. He then admitted that it was unaccredited. That is academic fraud relying only on Mr. Smart's own statements. I would be happy to take down the Werewolves site if Mr. Smart would but say where he earned a real Bachelor's degree. He hasn't done this, I believe, because he can't since he doesn't have a Bachelor's degree let alone the Ph.D. that he claims. For more details you may reference, http://follies.werewolves.org/PhDFraud/ . Please stop your violations of WP:NPA but thank you for the opportunity to discuss academic fraud. Bill Huffman 23:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

WarHawkSP, I was reponding in the above to your statement, that there is not a shred of evidence that Mr. Smart's degree is bogus. Please don't delete it simply so that it appears that your ridiculous personal attacks against me have any merit. If you don't want information about Mr. Smart's academic fraud on the talk page then I suggest first that you don't bring it up! If you do bring it up then do not delete responses to your personal attacks. BTW, I'm still waiting for you to show one lie I told or Usenet post that I maliciously editted. If you can do that I'll happily remove the Werewolves website and not put up another. In the meantime, please stop your violations of WP:NPA and WP:VANDAL. Thank you, Bill Huffman 23:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You cant prove a negative and what you are doing is pure libel and which has no place in this article or talk pages. Anyway, like most, I have come to the conclusion that arguing with you is a waste of time. So I am just going to report this on the WP:BLP noticeboard, along with your Usenet history and activities here; and let them deal with it. WarHawkSP 12:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marriages and Divorces

Smart was divorced from April Christine Jenkins Smart on 1/19/2000. He married Peggy Lynn Johnson in Wakulla county on 6/13/2000.

That information is publically available at [25]. Nandesuka 13:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I can almost guarantee you thats not him. You guys want to be very careful with this. There are several Derek Smarts (one of whom is a famous sports caster) in the USA, including no less than three in Florida. In order to verify that is him, you need his full name, social security number etc. A lot of people have the same name. WarHawkSP 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP. This is SPECIFICALLY discussed - "Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are public records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publicly available and where that information has first been reported by a verifiable secondary source." (bolded by me). Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But this is a talk page, and it's fine to have the information here -- especially as it may help us find a verifiable secondary source that discusses his marriage(s) and/or divorce. For that matter, given that Smart discussed his divorce in an interview in Gamespy, how is this not appropriate? Nandesuka 14:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. WP:BLP does not permit that sort of information in the article or talk pages.. I quote.

These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.

WarHawkSP 18:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from the sentence in WP:BLP immediately preceding the part you quoted: "Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source." (emphasis added) Can we all agree that an interview in a major gaming magazine qualifies as a "verifiable secondary source"? If so, I don't really understand what possible objection there can be to including this absolutely uncontroversial and mundane biographical information — at least, at this point, as regards the divorce — in the article. Nandesuka 14:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If the divorce or remariage is mentioned in a reliable secondary source I don't care. Usenet is NOT a reliable source, nor is some guys blog/webpage. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't talk about Usenet or a blog, I talked about an interview in Gamespy. Do you agree that that is a reliable secondary source, or not? Nandesuka 14:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont see that information is even relevant. Apart from that WP:BLP has stringent rules for including personal information in a Wiki. Here comes another firefight. WarHawkSP 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Gamespy articles are inarugably reliable sources. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :-). For the record, I agree that we shouldn't use USENET posts as indicative of anything other than USENET itself. The blog/webpage decision has to be made on a case-by-case basis; to take an example not related to this article, one could argue that Andrew Sullivan's webpage is "just a blog," but who he is matters. Nandesuka 14:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I wrote "some guys blog." I believe we are in violent agreement. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it's actually the same person? Wakulla county is up near where I live in north florida. Smart's offices are in south florida, in ft. lauderdale, which is broward county. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I just did the search myself and thats definitely not him. Derek Lee Smart? LOL!! I found a bunch of Derek Smarts with various name variations and none of them in the county where he lives and most were property related items. Also, if you look at the GameSpy article and do the mental math, you will immediately know that it simply cant be him.WarHawkSP 21:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you know his middle name? That's funny -- I've never seen it written anywhere. But, of course, you're right that there could be more than one Derek Smart. In any event, my general point that there should be substantial public records extant stands. Nandesuka 01:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed to know his middle name, from his postings on Usenet, its not Lee. WarHawkSP 08:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Smart's middle name is Kevin. I learned that from two independent sources so I'm quite certain it is correct. Mr. Smart also published his driver's license number and social security number on Usenet but I'm not going to release that information. Bill Huffman 02:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats not true. You made up that Kevin name based on a post that was made on Usenet in this thread back in 1997. Assuming that the post you have on you site was made by him (difficult to prove since no search engine has it) here is what he said:

..and yes, my name has been changed across parental marriages. My last name is an abbreviation of of a long compound African American name. My full name, as those who've seen my business cards, ss card, license etc, know it's Derek K. Smart, Ph.D. The K does not stand for some middle name, my middle names are Paul and Julian, neither of which I use. The last name is K....-Smart. Hehe, boy is Bill going to have a hernia over this one.

The post has since been removed by Google obviously because it contained his drivers license. In your continued illegal activities against this guy, you have archives of the original post (another one here) and which does in fact contain his drivers license. Assuming that number is correct like that NPD article you have on your site, it is illegal for you to have his drivers license number especially on a web page in this day of identity theft. Even Windows Live Search has both appearing only on your site.

The fact that you admit to having his SSN and DL numbers given the spat between you and him is the stuff that lawsuits and criminal arrests are made of. But you dont care about that do you?WarHawkSP 08:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Smart posted that information on the Usenet himself. I'm not sure that the African tribe that Mr. Smart is descendant from spells their name the same as the English name Kevin but someone that said they worked on the original BC3K with Mr. Smart wrote me an email and said that he was absolutely certain that Mr. Smart's middle name was Kevin. I fully appreciate the fact that Mr. Smart likes to threaten law suits so I thought I should get a second source validating the name of the African tribe that are among Mr. Smart's ancesters. I found an amateur novel author in Italy that dedicated his work in progress to a Derek Kevin Smart. I wrote him and he verified that it was the same Derek Kevin Smart that developed BC3K. WarHawkSP, perhaps you just aren't good enough friends with Mr. Smart for him to tell you his secret middle name? Bill Huffman 16:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that your site is the only one carrying it, we should believe you. Right. And your claims of third party info is a suspect as is everything on your site and your actions toward this guy. Some contractor or Italian author (does he have a name, a site?) gives you this information. LOL!! With all that is known about Smart, you are the person that they would give this information to, as if it were any big secret what his middle is? How absurd. I cant help but see shades of exactly the straw arguments you and your friends propagated on Usenet happening here. You need to stop and respect the fact that this article and talk page are protected by WP:BLP and specifically about potentially libelous and/or poorly sourced (like yours) material. WarHawkSP 17:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

WarHawkSP, I would like to encourage you to communicate. Please observe that the idea to try and make Mr. Smart appear more human and likeable has apparently been squelched. This is because you communicated your strong feeling that Mr. Smart would likely not approve. Don't you think that it worked much better than revert warring? I think that you can still improve in your handling of the WP editting process by leaving out the personal attacks and assuming good faith on the part of your fellow editors when you communicate. Please continue to communicate but try harder to only communicate about the article rather than the editors. Thank you, Bill Huffman 03:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Informal Mediation on this article

I'm going to informally mediate the edit warring going on with this page. All editors on this page need to be mindful of the policies regarding editing: civility, No personal attacks, and assume good faith. Editors on this project are rapidly growing tired with the incessant edit warring going on with this page. It needs to stop, and we need to get back to editing. Stop reverting each other and discuss on this talk page.

Secondarily, if you are a new editor, or coming here from an outside webpage, and are unfamiliar with the rules of Wikipedia, you need make yourself aware of them very quickly, because further violations of them on this entry will NOT be tolerated.

Please sign your name below with ~~~~ (4 tildes) and a brief note whether you agree with or disagree to participate in mediation on this page. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree Bill Huffman 07:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC) I hope that it is okay that I didn't put four tildes first? :-) OXOXXO (that means kisses and hugs) Bill Huffman 07:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree , thank and will extend SWATJester my fullest cooperation. NB - I am called for urgent hospital duty to the outstations where net access will be diffcult to find, hence I will respond to the RFC filled against me in a few days time.Kerr avon 07:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it will be certified, but if it is, we'll notate that you are away from wiki. Besides, it's an RfC, it has no teeth, it just gains a consensus.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Agree WarHawkSP 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not much of a party here, but I would actually suggest Arbitration, as at this point it's clear that mediation will get nowhere as there are many issues involving civility and single purpose accounts that should be addressed in a binding fashion. Cowman109^Talk 20:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration might be the best way to go then. Bill Huffman 04:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I hope this gets us somewhere. --Beaker342 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cowman, I'm in agreement with you about arbitration, however I would be wary of ArbCom rejecting the case due to lack of due dilligence in Dispute Resolution. If the mediation fails, I will gladly file RFAr, or if someone else does I will include my viewpoint. However I don't feel like I would like to be the one to nominate it before the mediation has a chance to go through. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Mael-Num 23:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Agree

[edit] Removals of talk page comments

It is highly inappropriate to remove talk page comments from your opposition in an dispute. If any content is added to the talk page that is against policy, kindy bring it to the attention of a neutral party. Do not simply blank opposing arguments. Thanks. - Ehheh 17:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I know that you are one of the primary editors who doesnt care about adhering to policies. But I would have you know that WP:BLP as it related to poorly sourced and controversial material does not require a neutral party to remove it. Go back and read it please. I am not having an argument with him about me or him. The material he posted clearly violates policy and I have every right to REMOVE it. So I did. If you or anyone puts it back in I will report it for vandalism. WarHawkSP 17:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want that information on the talk page then don't bring it up. Thank you, Bill Huffman 00:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally, talk page material is not removed, because the entire point of WP:BLP is to protect from libel lawsuits, and libel does not apply to opinions. If you believe something on a talk page is inappropriate, strike it using the <s></s> commands. However, generally the only time talk page comments are allowed to be deleted is under WP:RPA, which is a guideline, not a policy. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I STRONGLY disagree. He wasnt offering an opinion. He is doing exactly what he did on Usenet by accusing Smart of academic fraud. How can you NOT see that? Also, according to policy, such material CAN be removed from talk pages. You might want to read this, which is what am going by. Look, this guy is bad news. He has no business on this Wiki other than to taint it and inject his rhetoric on others.

I am also going by the tag at the very top of the talk page which CLEARLY states thus

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

Anyway, I sent Smart an email earlier this week and this morning he tells me that he is going to contact Jimbo Wales directly, since there are strict rules which allow pages about people to contact them if there are such issues of libel. WarHawkSP 12:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

He's welcome to do so. however, what was posted on the talk page was CLEARLY opinion. Trust me I'm keenly aware of BLP's limitations and restrictions, and in this case they do not aply. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 06:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article reported on WP:BLP noticeboard

I have reported this page on the noticeboard. WarHawkSP 13:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WarHawkSP, I'm flabbergasted at how totally out of touch you are with the situation, it is ridiculous. I guess I should have known, you are your own worst enemy. Regards, Bill Huffman 15:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to congratulate you on one thing though, that is communicating instead of edit warring. That is an improvement. I hope that I've contributed to that improvement at least in some small part. I'll be watching with interest to see how your most recent Wiki-lawyering turns out. Have fun, Bill Huffman 15:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious...what do you expect to accomplish from this, Warhawk? Mael-Num 23:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, try reading the page description itself. To me, thats the page where WP:BLP violations are reported. So, I reported it. WarHawkSP 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume that is a rhetorical question. Bill Huffman 23:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Rhetorical questioning on talk is better than revert warring and flaming. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For sure.--Jeff 12:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish to thank everyone for the jollies. As a matter of fact this might be the most fun I've ever had not editting an article. Have fun, Bill Huffman 15:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration filed on Derek Smart

Hello,

A request for arbitration has been filed on this article. If you would like to contribute to the request, or subsequent case if accepted, please visit WP:RFAR. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's great, but where's the request? I don't see it. :)--Jeff 03:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wrote the notification before I wrote the request, the request is up now. If your browser doesn't show it, refresh a few times, or try a hard refresh (ctrl+f5 in most browsers, or shift click the reload button). ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SEC filing interpretation

Jeffness, you are being irresponsible in your reverts which have no basis in reality. So let me explain this to you in plain English.

• Over the years, 3000AD signed BC3K to several publishers, then finally with Mission Studios who signed a publishing deal with Interplay. This is sourced.

• Mission Studios later sold the BC3K and Jetfighter rights to Take Two. This is sourced.

• So any advances that would have been paid by Take Two for the license, would have been made to the entity that they obtained the licensed from. That being Mission Studios.

• You misinterpreting that Take Two paid $618K to 3000AD, Inc, when in fact the SEC filing does not state who they paid the advances to, is 100% wrong and irresponsible of you to assume. Besides, why would Take Two pay advances to 3000AD? Even if they did, are you assuming that they got the license from Mission Studios for free? I think not.

• Incidentally, Take Two eventually bought Mission Studios and in so doing, fully acquired the Jetfighter and BC3K rights. This is sourced.

• The BC3K rights reverted back to 3000AD after their out-of-court settlement. This is sourced.

So, why do you keep removing this piece of information when someone else has included a more reasonable and npov version? This is whats wrong with this Wiki. You folks just think you can just add anything you feel like, regardless of policy and common sense. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You have some amazing insight into the situation for not providing any sources backing up your claims. Besides that, I adjusted the verbage long ago to be a direct quote from the SEC filing rather than claiming the money went anywhere as per your objections already (and by your I mean WarHawkSP's, or yours, however you want to look at it). --Jeff 13:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You just-dont-get-it do you? Here is what you have in your 'adjusted' verbage :

"Also in the filing, Take Two Interactive stated they made advances in the aggregate amount of approximately $618,000 to Smart's company, 3000AD" And you know this how?

Here is what the SEC filing actually says:

"Pursuant to the agreement, the Company made advances in the aggregate amount of approximately $618,000, a portion of which are recoupable against 3000 AD's share of distribution receipts. The Company is obligated to pay 3000 AD 18% of net receipts on sales of over 70,000 units in the United States and on sales in Europe.

As to the cites, if you pull up Google or even read the interviews and links already in the Wiki, you will see that everything I posted above, is sourced. I'm not going to do your work for you. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Might I remind you of WP:Civil ? And yeah, I just went through the history and I don't see the edit I thought I made. I must have just previewed it. I remember changing it at some point to be an exact quote and leave out the part about who it went to, you'll have to trust me on this one. Long story short, I'm fine with having the quote and leaving out where the money went. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffness (talk • contribs) 13:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Please stop waving the WP:Civil flag around. Where do you think we are? A schoolyard? We are having a heated debate about a highly sensitive Wiki article. So naturally things can and will flare up. Nowhere do I see me being in violation your cited guidelines; and I think I know WP:Civil word for word by now. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know man, i'm not flared up and there's no reason to be. I'm completely calm, so if you want to get flared up, well, whatever you want, I can't help that. But you are being incredibly rude. One of your goals as a contributor should be to not get flummoxed though as this isn't UseNET. I think if you left your emotions at the door, you and your other accounts might have more success at contributing to this article.--Jeff 14:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So you admit that you reverted WarHawkSP's edit of last night without so much as actually reading it? He clearly reverted it for the same reasons previously discussed and stated. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In a word, yep. I was operating under the honest assumption the wording had been changed. Sorry. See, that was easier than you thought.--Jeff 14:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Lets move on. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 14:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here we go. I knew that wording changed and I had agreed to it so I didn't say anything more. On Dec 10 at 17:50 Warhawk changed it. Dec 12 at 00:03 it was changed back by Mael-Num and I missed that.--Jeff 14:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, you should have read it before you reverted it. You have no excuse for that. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 15:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read elsewhere in the SEC filing, towards the top where terms like "The Company" are being defined, you will see that the Mission Studios entity is included in "The Company". So, you are proposing that Take-Two paid itself for BC3K? That seems a bit unlikely. Mael-Num 20:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Take Two bought the rights from Mission Studios before they bought Mission Studios itself. This is already cited. Do look it up. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 23:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to me that it makes sense that Take Two paid Mr. Smart since Mr. Smart was making the game? Don't you think that Mr. Smart was expecting to receive payment for the game? Isn't it normal for the person making a game to receive early payment to help cover the cost and complete the game development? When responding please point out the portion of the SEC filing that supports your contention since telling people to just look it up is not being helpful. Thank you, Bill Huffman 01:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it would make sense to you and anyone who can't comprehend written statements. I have stated my position several times regarding that entry. Go and look it up. Nowhere did they say who they paid the sum to. And since they bought the rights from the previous rights owner (Mission Studios), common sense and business acument should tell you that obviously the rights owners would be receiving the money from the buyer. This has nothing to do with who is developing the game. Thats like saying that if EA bought the rights to a game from MS, that the developers at MS would be getting the money and not MS. It is hard to imagine that I even have to type this up. But given your nonsensical and pointless posts about dsmart, this one is no exception. As for the article, since the filing does not state to whom the money was paid, nobody can just guess who it was paid to and add that to the article. Simple. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 19:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response although your response still doesn't make sense to me. I read the SEC filing and the relevant paragraph doesn't seem to agree with your interpretation. Let me copy it here since perhaps I've looked at a different part of the long document than what would support your statement.

In August 1995, the Company entered into an agreement with 3000 AD, Inc. ("3000 AD"), which was amended in December 1995, February, May and September 1996 and March 1997, pursuant to which 3000 AD granted the Company the exclusive worldwide right to manufacture, market and distribute Battlecruiser 3000 A.D. for all platforms; and (ii) a right of first refusal to publish two additional games based on the engine used in Battlecruiser 3000 A.D. 3000 AD is entitled to retain all copyrights and trademarks relating to the product, including all enhancements to the product which may be made by the Company. Pursuant to the agreement, the Company made advances in the aggregate amount of approximately $618,000, a portion of which are recoupable against 3000 AD's share of distribution receipts. The Company is obligated to pay 3000 AD 18% of net receipts on sales of over 70,000 units in the United States and on sales in Europe.

I note that Mission Studios is NOT mentioned at all. It seems the quote above meaning is obvious. (I assure you, Supreme_Cmdr, that I can read and comprehend very well.) Unfortuanately the above quote doesn't seem to support what you consider an obvious interpretation instead it very plainly says that the sum of approximately $618,000 was paid to 3000 AD. It further states that a portion of which is recoupable against 3000 AD's share of distribution receipts. Please explain how it can possibly be interpretted that this money could have possibly gone anywhere besides 3000 AD. Please try and keep your response focused on the facts regarding the article and not your fellow editors. Thank you kindly, Bill Huffman 20:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple other notes: the SEC filing calls the $618,000 an advance. The only money exchange that can be called an advance is money paid to 3000 AD, correct? If it was money paid to say Mission Studios (which you contend) that would not seem to be an advance. If it was paid to anyone other than 3000 AD then how could it possibly be recoupable against 3000 AD's share of distribution receipts? It seems to me, that the only possible complete explanation of the quoted paragraph is that 3000 AD received the $618,000 money. I hope that this explanation helps you in a proper understanding. If you continue to believe otherwise then please explain your counter interpretation of "advance" and "recoupable against 3000 AD's share of distribution receipts" in your response. Thanks, Bill Huffman 21:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I think Bill's right.--Jeff 17:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, he's wrong. The SEC filing is not open to interpretation by armchair attorneys. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 19:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you if not doing the same?--Jeff 20:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously Mission Studios may have advanced 3000AD for the development of the game. That amount is unknown. Since 3000AD owns the rights to the games and licensed those rights to Mission Studios, their re-assignment of the rights to a third party (in this case Take Two) would have required 3000AD to sign a deal directly with Take Two in order to report to that publisher and continue developing the game. When someone buys the rights to properties, it doesn't compel anyone involved in that sale, to comply. Which is why often when companies get bought out, disgruntled people leave. To me this seems to be the case. So whatever sum Take Two paid would have possibly been enough to cover Mission Studio's expenses up to that point. Which is why 3000AD is specifically mentioned because without their involvement, Take Two would have bought an incomplete product. You would have to ask Take Two why Mission Studios is not mentioned, but from my searches it is wildly known that Take Two obtained the rights to that game directly from Mission Studios. So to assume that the money went solely to 3000AD is incorrect because then one would assume that Mission Studios made nothing from the deal. Highly unlikely.

The bottom line is that speculation and conjecture does not pass the WP:RS test. So unless it clearly states who the money was paid to, it cannot be cited. If Take Two didn't say who they paid it to, who are we to do it for them and speculate on that? But you already knew that since you are the master of speculation, untruths, conjecture and the like because facts tend to elude you. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 16:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The money that Take Two paid for Mission Studios is described in a totally different paragraph. There is no reason for the SEC filing to reference what they paid to Mission Studios for the rights to BC3K before they absorbed Mission Studios because once they bought out Mission Studios that agreement would have just been moneys that was paid to themselves. Bill Huffman 03:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph in question from the cite could not be clearer (emphasis is mine):

In August 1995, the Company entered into an agreement with 3000 AD, Inc. ("3000 AD"), which was amended in December 1995, February, May and September 1996 and March 1997, pursuant to which 3000 AD granted the Company the exclusive worldwide right to manufacture, market and distribute Battlecruiser 3000 A.D. for all platforms; and (ii) a right of first refusal to publish two additional games based on the engine used in Battlecruiser 3000 A.D. 3000 AD is entitled to retain all copyrights and trademarks relating to the product, including all enhancements to the product which may be made by the Company. Pursuant to the agreement, the Company made advances in the aggregate amount of approximately $618,000, a portion of which are recoupable against 3000 AD's share of distribution receipts. The Company is obligated to pay 3000 AD 18% of net receipts on sales of over 70,000 units in the United States and on sales in Europe.

Pursuant to the agreement with 3000 AD, Take Two made advances of $618,000. To assert that the recipient is not 3000 AD after reading this paragraph is being disingenuous. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey bud. You're just speculating. Did you read this part? a portion of which are recoupable against 3000 AD's share of distribution receipts? Do you know how game development deals are done and structured? If you don't, then you can't even begin to debate this. That right there make the sums paid to 3000AD ambiguous. Sure they must have been paid something, but to state that they were paid $618 in advances when the SEC filing didn't state that in clarity, fails WP:RS. So argue about it all you want but plz keep Wiki policy in mind because this is just another pointless strawman argument. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 01:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I work in the software biz! I can do arithmetic, too. 70,000 units x reasonable price ($40-50) x 18% = roughly $600,000. It's not hard to see where the recoupable portions come in. - Ehheh 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, go back to your calculator. Thats not how the math works in the gaming industry. There are many articles written about it. Go read one of them. First of all, games weren't even sold for that much in 1996. And since you had to shoe horn in your ($40-50) number, clearly indicates that you're trying to make the numbers fit your argument. That won't work bud. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't need fudge factors if the filing didn't include them (approximately, etc). Here's an idea: cite one of these many articles. Quote a passage that indicates how everyone but you is misinterpreting this section. Because an Appeal to authority doesn't carry much weight when you don't possess any verifiable authority. Ehheh 14:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You came up with the reasonable price figure. It does not appear anywhere in the filing. So all you're doing is speculating. I can safely inform you that publishers don't pay developers based on the MSRP of the product. In fact, that doesn't happen in any industry at all. By your calculation, you are saying that they are paying 3000AD, a then unknown developer, the full MSRP for the product. In othr words, top dollar. LOL!!! Gimme a break. Surely you jest? You migtht want to read this and this WarHawkSP 19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is another one that dsmart himself wrote based on a debate he was having with another indie developer. btw, I fixed your improperly formatted Wiki tags. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 20:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I am speculating. And you can inform me of anything you like. My back of the envelope calculation was just to show that the advance figure is not as unreasonable as Supreme Cmdr attempts to claim, and it is not immediately obvious that everyone else is reading the filing incorrectly. He'll have to explain how and why everyone else is wrong (preferably with some kind of source to back it up). Flatly stating 'you are wrong' with no support will not get anywhere. Ehheh 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your back of the envelope calculation is exactly why WP:RS exists. You can't use speculation, conjecture, a crystal ball or in your case, just bad math, to make a point. The argument here is not about who got paid what, but rather is about what the SEC filing actually states clearly. And it does not state clearly who was paid what. For that reason, it cannot be cited nor added to the article that 3000AD was paid $618K in advances for the product. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 20:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The SEC filing did state in perfect clarity that 3000 AD was advanced about $618,000. It is not a strawman argument. One does not have to be a lawyer to understand simple English. An advance payment can be made to a game developer that may or may not be recoupable from future potential royalties or even just partially recoupable. Apparently the 3000 AD advances consisted of both type of advances or just partially recoupable. It has nothing to do with Mission Studios or any other distraction that has been attempted to be introduced into the discussion. That paragraph is a summary of the agreement between Take Two and 3000 AD. There are no other parties involved in that paragraph. The statement to the SEC is crystal clear, 3000 AD was advanced about $618,000. No one has proposed any other reasonable interpretation. Insults have been made and irrelevant distractions that have nothing to do with the actual wording in the SEC filing have been made but no other reasonable interpretation. I have to agree with Nuggetboy that trying to state that anyone else besides 3000 AD could have been paid the $618,000 or a part of that sum is simply being disingenuous. I mean it is stated plainly. If 3000 AD never received that sum then Take Two lied in the SEC filing. As a matter of fact, if I recall correctly, Mr. Smart stated on Usenet a number of times that he never received a dime for BC3K 1.0. Perhaps that is why Supreme_Cmdr is having trouble believing what the SEC filing plainly states? Bill Huffman 02:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please show me the exact quote where the filing - in perfect clarity - states that 3000 AD was advanced about $618,000. Don't take too long now, because I'm fast losing interest in this pointless banter. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The point of contention here was who got paid. It's ironic that you accuse me of a Straw man when that's precisely what you're doing by arguing about the amount. In either case, this sentence:

Pursuant to the agreement, the Company made advances in the aggregate amount of approximately $618,000, a portion of which are recoupable against 3000 AD's share of distribution receipts.

makes that statement, seeing as "the agreement" was with 3000 AD. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with those who observe that the plain reading of the SEC filing is that 3000 AD was advanced around $618,000 by Take 2. If Supreme Cmdr wishes to promulgate an extraordinary reading of that plain statement, then he needs to provide extraordinary evidence. Nandesuka 15:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You would. This is such a simple matter but given all the arguments on this page and with people (Jeffness) doing the flip flop, its not surprising that we're arguing again on this page. You cannot say what amount was paid to whom because the SEC filing is not clear on this matter. In fact, it states that a portion of those advances are recoupable against 3000AD's share of revenue. So, Dear Lord, how did you guys arrive at this conclusion that they were paid $618K by Take Two? Where in that SEC filing does it say this? Quite clearly it doesn't say that anywhere.

Why would only a portion be deducted from their revenue? Sure Take Two made advances. It could have been made to Mission Studios (the publishing rights holder) or 3000AD (the IP holder); but it does not clearly say to who this sum was paid. It is well known that the rights were bought from Mission Studios, so given that $618K was quite a bit of coin back in 1996, anyone who thinks that all that money went to 3000AD, who didn't even own the publishing rights, had yet to actually ship a game, and that Mission Studios got nothing, is just fooling themselves.

Perhaps an email to the man himself or to Take Two would clear things up. Until then, there is no point in arguing about this. It just doesn't pass the WP:RSmuster but that hasn't stopped you guys before. Which is why this page is currently in arbCom. WarHawkSP 19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The SEC filing is absolutely clear. It states that an advance of about $618,000 was given to 3000 AD. It states that Mission Studios and Take Two are both parts of the the same entity called "The Company". It states that "The Company" advanced approximately $618,000 to 3000 AD. Your argument about only a portion of this advance being recoupable somehow magically implies that The Company is including payments to itself as part of that $618,000 flies in the face of logic and reasonable accounting principles. It is not supported by the plain wording of the SEC filing. Money to buy Mission Studios is covered in a totally different paragraph. 3000 AD didn't own the publishing rights because it gave that up that right in the agreement where it received, in part, the $618,000 in advances. Your references to Mission Studios is totally unsupported by the wording of the SEC filing and nothing but a distraction from the simple and plain wording of the SEC filing. Bill Huffman 23:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill you being the master obfuscation need to just respond to my question instead of engaging in circular arguments. Show me the part where it says that Take Two paid 3000AD the sum of $618K in advances for the product. Thats all. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Here it is for the third time.

the Company entered into an agreement with 3000 AD, Inc. ("3000 AD"), [...] Pursuant to the agreement, the Company made advances in the aggregate amount of approximately $618,000, a portion of which are recoupable against 3000 AD's share of distribution receipts.

Please keep your response focused on the article material rather than your fellow editors. I don't think it would look good for you for a complaint to be filed against you at this point in time which I perceive that you are probably extremely vulnerable. Thank you, Bill Huffman 04:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This will be my final post on the matter. That statement is ambigous and unclear. There are two parties involved in the sale. The filing does not clearly state who was paid what. It states that an advance sum for the product was paid. It also states that a portion of that sum is recoupable against 3000AD's receipts. That obviously means that they received some money, rather than the $618K that you folks are latching on to. Since the title was purchased from Mission Studios, it stands to reason that a portion went to them and the portion that went to 3000AD is the portion that is deducted from their royalties. Thats how advances work.

I also need to point you once again to the notice at the top of the page. What you folks are arguing about, is poorly sourced and inconclusive. So it fails WP:RS

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea that that paragraph means something other than what it appears to say is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof; "it stands to reason" is inadequate. I encourage you to seek our a reliable source that supports your contention that the paragraph "Company A entered into a contract with Company B. Pursuant to this agreement, Company A advanced X dollars." actually means that Company A advanced the money to Company C, who is not mentioned in that paragraph. Good luck with that. Nandesuka 13:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition to what Nandesuka points out, "The Company" is well defined to include Mission Studios and Take Two. I'm sure it would be deceitful and likely illegal to hide a portion of a dollar exchange to yourself. That would be like saying I make 100 million dollars a year (my employer pays me 1 million but I pay myself 99 million). It would be a silly lie that doesn't make sense. The only way that I see from the clear SEC filing statement that 3000 AD didn't get about $618,000 is if the SEC filing is lying or the agreement was that 3000 AD wanted part of the money to go to me or Microsoft or charity or something. The partial recoupable could simply mean that depending on the likely sales figures, only part of the $618,000 would likely ever be recoupable. BTW Supreme_Cmdr, I suspect that time is running out to present your evidence at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Derek_Smart/Evidence. Regards, Bill Huffman 16:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cmdr's claims are ridiculous. A SEC filing is a reliable source, the source tells us Take 2 advanced payment to 3000AD. Mission Studios aren't even mentioned, if we're to take your word over the wording of the SEC filing, then you've absolutely failed to grasp the concept of verifiability. Do you follow intelligent design? - hahnchen 20:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP applies beyond the subject of the article

Biographies of living persons states (with bold added by me):

Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons and/or including any material related to living persons ... Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.[2] These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

Why is this not applied to the following statements from the Derek Smart talk page:

• "[NAME DELETED] ... Given your Usenet history for stalking Derek Smart"
• "There is also that incident with the kid you sent out to locate where Smart lived. In other words you took your online stalking into the real world and had the kid arrested and a restraining order filed against him."
• "It seems to me that the description of a net stalker doesn't seem to have fazed you one bit"
• "compare you and Smart; as you being the primary stalker and person who tainted every single forum or group he was in."
• "the opinions started by an alleged net stalker. A stalker who would go so far as to seek out the daughter of the person he so hates. A stalker who is so blinded by hate that he spends so much time, effort and energy on discredting someone in whose life he has no stake. "

The statements above (stating that someone is a stalker) appear to be controversial, poorly sourced material about a living person. Should the above statements be immediately removed in accordance with the Biographies of living persons guideline: "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages." Uncle uncle uncle 18:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The comments are directed at Bill Huffman and not the subject, in this case Derek Smart, of the "living persons" Wiki entry. Plus the statements are factual and sourced. Also, apparently these editors won't let you remove any material from talk pages, even when they violate WP:BLP. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 09:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That is what I intended by the title "BLP applies beyond the subject of the article." That I believe that the BLP guideline clearly states: "including any material related to living persons" and "These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles." Therefore, any material about a living person "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.[2]" I have stated that I believe that this seems to apply to the text above about claims of stalking. This stalking claim appears to be poorly sourced or unsourced - and is certainly no better sourced than the less serious claims about Smart's PhD, a Coke machine incident, poor game reviews, and other statements about which WP:BLP and WP:RS complaints have been made against. And therefore according to WP:BLP those poorly sourced claims of stalking should be removed immediately.Uncle uncle uncle 18:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Supreme_Cmdr, I thought that you were banned from editing Derek Smart and related articles and talk pages? Since you're here though I can't resist pointing out an amusing flaw in one of your arguments.

The reason for his fame has nothing to do with him being highly inflammatory. Thats like saying that Bill Clinton is notable for being a cheater

You might want to take a look at the Bill_clinton#The_Lewinsky_scandal article. Guess what I found? The ex-president is very notable for being a cheater! Actually come to think of it don't comedians like Jay Leno still to this day tell jokes based on the dress, the cigar, Hilary being upset with her husband, etc.. So it is actually a most excellent example demonstrating how incorrect you are. Thank you and have fun, Bill Huffman 06:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

When I saw that Clinton thing, I flashed back to a little quote from Lloyd Bentsen. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Technically, I suppose that you're correct. The false statements that you reference are examples of the main reason I re-immersed myself into Mr. Smart's warped reality. I felt that some of the falsehoods needed to be corrected because it seemed that some were actually having a positive effect for him. After a closer look I have decided that I was mistaken and people were simply trying to humor the main obstruction to progress in order to try to make a small amount of progress on the article. What it boils down to is what it usually boils down to for Mr. Smart, that is that he is his own worst enemy. Even when he's on his best behavior he manages to insult every Wiki Admin in existance and then for good measure insult the whole Wikipedia project thereby making it obvious (at least to me) both that he's the problem in the edit war and that it is entirely reasonable that he's more famous for his abrasive behavior than for his game development. So what I'm saying is that the admin's have actually done a great job under very trying circumstances. Also, it appears to me (an inexperienced newbie Wiki watcher and sometimes editor) that the source of the violations that you reference may not have as free reign to make such statements in the future. Of course this is all predicated on my own opinion which is almost always hopelessly optimistic. Have fun, Bill Huffman 03:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Arbitration has been opened on this article. If you were named in the RFAR, you should go now and present your evidence. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Evidence Regards, Bill Huffman 22:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

People have requested your opinion, Supreme_Cmdr (or WarHawkSP).

I wonder what Supreme Commander and the other pro-Smart editors think about what we're discussing here

I too am curious. Here's the discussion. [26] Here's where your opinion was explicitly wondered about and I too would appreciate your opinion. I predicted what you would likely say so it's a great opportunity for you to prove me wrong. :-) [27]

Regards, Bill Huffman 05:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Workshop

Most of the discussion is now on the workshop page. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 22:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits per article

Edits per article is 14.52 average see Special:Statistics. The Derek Smart article is over the average.

To see how this compared I checked out the history for Evolution. It had approximately 8000 edits. The Derek Smart article only has had between 1000 and 1500 edits. Hopefully it won't take the Derek Smart article 6000 more edits to look as good as the Evolution article. :-) Have fun, Bill Huffman 06:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also you can deduce from that page the "average wikipedian" has made approximately 30+ edits, hmmm.... I'm not normal. Yay! (this ignores the existence of anons....) Mathmo ^Talk 07:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)