Talk:Palladium Books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Ten sided die This article is part of WikiProject Role-playing games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:Role-playing games
 Role-playing games Portal

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Palladium Books article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] On the Canadian info

Is that really necessary? I mean, Rifts has world books on Africa, Australia, South America and all the other main georgraphical areas of the planet also, but I don't think it woud be a good idea to add a section for each of those also. --TheChin! 15:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point is that many game universe constructs by other American publishers have those other regions as a matter of course while otherwise largely completely ignoring Canada despite the fact its literally next door. Instead we get silly stereotypes like in Torg where the only mention of Canada is a small article in a world book with a silly character template of a RCMP constable in Red Serge as a regular duty uniform.
Palladium Book is different from the start. And for your information, I never said ANYTHING about worldbooks and that is the point. Instead, Canada plays a major role in Palladium's earth oriented game settings which includes detailed description in the BASIC RULES book which came out first. No other American game publisher does that in their gameworlds with the better ones treating Canada as an afterthought.
Untrue. FASA/GamePro's "Shadowrun" has Canada and Canadian companies as very powerful entities in their game universe. 166.50.201.117 14:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
That set Palladium apart and as a Canadian, I feel that deserves some mention that it treats my country as if it exists. -Kchishol1970
On the other hand, their Robotech RPG made repeated references to the Calgary-Montana border....Silly Dan 03:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"I feel that deserves some mention that it treats my country" 'I feel' and 'my country' are the two big warning flags there. This is personal opinion at worst, and original research at best. NEITHER of which is allowed here. If you feel so strongly, then may I suggest you seek some verifiable source from Palladium or perhaps a Canadium game magazine, online or off, that has an article or a comment similiar to your views. Then paraphrase those here with a proper link. Otherwise, it does not matter how strongly you feel... your OPINIONS no matter how just you think they are are supposed to be no more welcome here then anyone elses. Also I would point out you essentially say that the rest of the game industry 'ignores' your country which is at the least an indirect negative assertion against them and anything like that here MUST be backed up by outside sources. Off the top of my head Twilight 2000, Shadowrun, Warhammer FB/RPG, Werewolf (both WW and GURPS versions), and D20 modern ALL have addressed your country to varying degrees. You are, unfortunatly, not an industry expert and so your opinion of which ones do what amount of justice is unsourced fan opinion mixed with national pride. Great for fan pages. Innappropriate for an encyclopedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright and Munchkinism

I editted the entry rather extensively; despite it being in talk for a while, no one has substantiated the Fair Use violation accusations, nor the "Kevin Seimbeida forbids tape-recording of his statements." I also mitigated the accusations of munchkinism; it doesn't fit with a neutral POV on the subject, and it's a fairly subjective standard.

---Mr. Nexx July 6, 2005 21:29 (UTC)

[edit] Large Edit of 8/7

I didn't mean for it to be, but I just made a rather large edit of the Palladium page (as well as several, smaller edits). Comparing it to Iceberg3k's last edit, I removed several NPOV statements, corrected some formatting, and tightened up the opening and alignment sections, as well as expanding information about their games. I also put Rifts in with their other games; it was mentioned tangentially in the main article, but this gives it a better introduction for the main Rifts page. And corrected some spelling, as well.

And then I went in and made changes to the system section.---Mr. Nexx 06:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Split Article

Does anyone have an opinion they would like to share on whether this article should be split into two articles, one for Palladium Books, and one for the Megaversal System? I feel that this change should be made. This will allow for the further editing of the various specific Palladium games to have a link in the infobox's system section directly to an article about the system that is universal between them all. Asatruer 20:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not a horrid idea, actually.---Mr. Nexx 13:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Going Under?

I'm having trouble verifying this at the moment, but I'm on Palladium Yahoogroups mailing list, and we just got an e-mail with a plea for help from Kevin Siembieda, saying that the company's been hit from the inside by certain backstabbers and is in serious financial need. I won't edit the article with this info until I can verify it, but I'll post the e-mail here:

(Snipping excessively long post that has by now been linked from within the article itself.)

Yes, it's true. They're in financial trouble. See the links from within the article itself.
--Robotech_Master 23:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I'll be damned... those "negative rumors" about Kevin were right. He is a pain in the butt to work with. Heh... I remember people editing those comments out of the Wiki article in the past, because they had no "hard source" to quote out of: but now the leaky ship is sinking, and all the ooze spills out. Karma my friends. Karma.
Well that's a subjective interpretation of the situation.
If THAT is the attitude of someone who actively participates in the editting and updating of an Online Encyclopedia, than Wikipedia is in danger. 68.175.13.67 04:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll say I personaly don't know if Kevin is a pain to work with, but Kevin is very open and friendly to talk with people. Even if Kevin is a pain to work with doesn't such a thing would cause the company to go under, especially after 25 years under the same man. I know a big source of negative rumors is from Bill Coffin and those he has convinced to support him. Bill acts like a big writer from what I hear, though some of his books for Palladium are still on their first printings. Bill simply has an axe to grind. 69.212.31.200 22:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Shadow_otm


And other books by Bill are major sellers, and he pretty well carried the PF line for years. I think his relationship with Palladium hurt him badly, but saying that he "simply has an axe to grind" is is dismissive of his concerns. ---Mr. Nexx 04:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't be dismissive of concerns if they were voiced as concerns. I feel as though Bill has more of a personal problem with Kevin due to the fact that he was and how he was fired. No one likes being fired... and some people just take it more personally than others. I do think I have a Coffin book or two... and I really think I like books that Wujeck worked on better, but that's a matter of taste and opinion. 75.10.14.174 02:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Shadow_otm
I hate to say this, but you said "I feel as though...", anything that begins with that is 100% PoV from then on out. You put forward some fine opinions... but no offense, unless you're someone in the industry and specifically in the company, those can't mean squat here. Like it or not, if the man makes valid complaints, and was in a position within the company to have gained that information, it CAN be linked here and put in the article. At that point all you can do is put up links other sources contradicting him (as most articles do with contraversy like this... roughly equal space to both sides, or links to make sure both sides can be easily accessed by readers), OR make an arguement here for the editors of the pages as a whole to include neither side at all. You cannot simply remove one side of the arguement because you 'Feel' any way towards it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information Deletion

Note to Annonymous Information Deleters: The full history of all versions of both the main article page and the discussion page (this page) are saved forever.

Notice: To those who maintain this article. The information you have added regarding Palladium Books current financial difficulties has been deleted, and annonymously, as well. Be aware.

Update: And part of the information that was deleted has been restored, but without the hyperlinks originally included.

If you want it put back, go ahead and put it back. This is a wiki. Anyone can edit. I simply reverted an edit that looked like vandalism. Also, sign your posts with ~~~~, which automatically converts to your username or IP and the time. PurplePlatypus 05:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Update: the new user NMI, who was the last person to remove this content, has also vandalized my user page, presumably in retaliation for restoring the section (I strongly suspect NMI is one of the same people as the anonymous IPs who have blanked the same content). I am about to report this at AN/I. PurplePlatypus 05:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
rather late update: NMI is one of the moderators for the forums on Palladium Books' official site (and to judge from his continued censorship of this issue on the Palladium forums, almost definitely one or more of the anonymous vandals). To the best of my knowledge he's just a fan volunteer rather than a staff member or a published writer or artist, so the recent vandalism should be seen as the work of enthusiastic and stupid fans rather than damage control by company representatives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.56.69.157 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 27 May 2006.
I never thought it was someone directly involved with Palladium; they wanted people to know about the problems they were having. I did suspect he was someone with a bit more than a typical fan level of involvement (and the comment below confirmed that - if he thought we knew each other outside Wikipedia, however laughably mistaken he may have been, there must have been a reason why). PurplePlatypus 14:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I hadnt realized Logan, that I had deleted your user info/profile. For that I do apologize, no harm was meant. As far as the Financial Info that has been deleted before, I have only deleted it once, prior the the new "disputed" label being added to that section. Do I know who else may have deleted the previous postings of the Financial Troubles? Perhaps, but I wont tell. If they wanted you Logan or anyone else to know, then they wouldnt have done so anonymously. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NMI (talk • contribs) 17:51, 27 April 2006.

My name is not Logan, it's Jeff, and I don't care that it was anonymous, I care that it was vandalism. It is hard to see how the deletion could have been accidental, but whatever you say; I'm cool as long as it doesn't happen again. I'll remove the notice about it from my page, too, since it really wasn't appropriate on my part to put it there. Incidentally, the whole point of the tildes at the end of a talk page comment is that the wiki software automatically turns it into a signature (three tildes makes your name, four the name and date, five just the date); putting nowiki tags around them defeats the whole purpose of typing them in. PurplePlatypus 03:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stopping the Vandalism

Isn't there someway we can stop the Psychotic Palladium Fan Boys... I mean Anonymous Users from constantly deleting the Financial Troubles Section? Seanr451 05:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reported it at WP:AN/I#Palladium Books. (BTW, new sections should be put at the bottom of this page, not the top.) PurplePlatypus 11:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that while I violently disagree with (and have reverted, twice) the repeated blanking of the section, I don't think there's much point in including the links to Bill Coffin and others' criticisms. It's not that I don't believe them (on the contrary, I strongly suspect there is a great deal of truth in them) but they aren't that germane to the current situation. Perhaps a seperate "criticisms" section would be the best place for that, along with the paragraph currently in the intro about the problems with poor editing, etc.

If someone feels it's important to include criticisms and alternate explanations relevant to the current situations, it seems to me the points to run with are things like

  1. Most of the stolen items seem to be KS' personal property, not anything that would affect Palladium's cash flow
  2. It's possible, even probable, that the "losses" include revenue that KS expected that never materialized due to the various failed deals

But be very careful of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

Personally, while I want to punch the thief in the face as badly as anyone, my best guess is that theft is not the main cause of Palladium's current problems, despite what KS says. (I'm not saying KS is lying so much as that I don't trust his perceptions.) But I can't see a way of putting that in the article while staying within the above Wikipedia policies. PurplePlatypus 13:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the theft; I don't know precisely what Steve Sheiring stole, but whatever was stolen, they were items of value that could have been sold to raise money to keep things afloat. As for the Bill Coffin commentary, please note that he has apologized to Kevin publicly and has admitted wrongdoing in saying what he has said. Subjugator 00:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV problem

Opinions are never neutral.

As a fan of PB for nearly 20 years, it is very evident that palladium has been having problems over the past decade. Since the cause of these problems is open to debate, and since KS clearly isnt going to take any personal blame, I think the disgruntled voices should be heard.

If one wants more factual statements, has anyone counted how many multi-part series (splicers, wormwood, LOTD, china, underseas, triax, and others) are still unfinished. It seems clear that PB pulled the plug on these projects. The gripes from the guys who wrote hundreds of pages of material for PB only to see their vision unfinished is as important to PB's history as any sales figure or criminal investigation could be.

Concerning

13:29, 26 April 2006 PurplePlatypus (→Financial troubles - I don't think *including* this is very neutral, it's not clear what it has to do with the current problems, and it's inaccurate (none of them were "co-workers").)

Yes, they were co-workers (Bill Coffin, Steve Conan Trustrum, Jason Vey "The grey Elf"). Their declarations are not neutral, the neutrality is to report their POV along with the others.


cdang|write me 13:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

They were not co-workers, they were freelancers who happened to do some work for Palladium. It's not the same thing and describing it as though it were isn't good for the credibility of that section. PurplePlatypus 19:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I put a {{NPOV-section}} to point out the problem.
cdang|write me 14:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


I've added what amounts to the opposing viewpoint. Please clean up as you will. To only give the word of ex-employees or freelancers that might have a grudge against Palladium (justified or no) is hardly neutral. (No name given)

I saw no POV warning here, so I put one in - my guess is the previous one was removed by a vandal. I agree the section about the disgruntled ex-workers is possibly a bit strong, but these lines below it are 'definitely' biased, and ought to be removed or edited as soon as possible: "Their statements (the former employees and freelancers) seem to be sourgrapes and should not be taken seriously by anyone. Kevin Siembieda is a very nice and generous person, of which several of those "Former employees" tried to take advantage of. The comments made by those few freelancers have really nothing to do with the current situation at all." It may be true that these statements are unreliable, but we can't just say that without any evidence. Kevin Siembieda may well be a nice and generous person, but that's a personal judgement which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Terraxos 23:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"As long as the links to the disgruntled stay, so shall the statement in bold stay." -(The guy who put the bold statement in.)

That, sir, is essentially a statement that you will continue to display a complete lack of respect for multiple Wikipedia policies. If you want to discuss your issues rationally, feel free; this is the place to do so. On the other hand, you'll find that ultimatums don't get taken well, either here or for that matter, anywhere else in human society.
For what it's worth, I tend to agree that the statements from Coffin and the others don't belong in that section, and may or may not belong in the article at all, despite that I personally think they are probably largely true. I have pointed this out above. But your methods of trying to achieve this are likely to achieve the opposite of what you want, if anything at all.
By the way, please sign your contributions (to talk pages and the like, not to the article itself) with ~~~~. PurplePlatypus 02:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thinking about it, I believe that tying the criticisms to the financial difficulties is probably not warranted. All the same, I do believe there should be a separate section for such criticisms to be presented on their own. They are a legitimate point of view about the company, but they are just that--one point of view. Thus, a balancing statement indicating that would be necessary. (I believe the one about there being many employees who have been with the company for 20+ years is sufficient, though; the bold-faced "sour grapes" comment is unnecessary.)
Likewise, I think a link to the recent article about the indicted employee should be put back. The link may be to a RPGnet posting/comment thread, but the article itself was a journalistic report of facts that was published in a print newspaper (and on said print paper's website, which is unfortunately obfuscated by required registration to view, or else it would be a preferable link rather than the RPGnet one), it's not just someone on RPGnet making things up. The article does raise the question as to how Kevin was able to claim $800K to $1.2 million in damages but only be awarded $50,000 in restitution (restitutions, unlike damages awards, tend to be tied pretty closely to the actual amount of claimable loss, even if a payment plan must be set up for the malfeasant), so not including it but including Kevin's $800K to $1.2 million figure would also be one-sided.
--Robotech_Master 00:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I, too, think the "sour grapes" bit is a bit unprofessional. A statement as to the employees still serving after 20+ should do nicely.

The RPGNet thread regrettably can hardly be weighed as unbiased after the official announcement--but the problem is, the same argument could be made for the link on the Palladium forums. If we had a non-pay 3rd party link to the Sheiring article, I think it would solve this rather nicely. As it is, I fear it will continue to be the point of some contention, especially given the acrimonious nature of the relationship between rpg.net and Palladium's fans.

And restitution, especially in a plea bargain case, is rarely tied into any number. There are so many variables between Palladium's estimations, what the DA asked for, what was bargained, assets aside from monetary ones, that it is entirely likely the $850k or higher figure could be a mix of lost sales, lost merchandise, personal theft, court costs, lost work time, etc. It does us little good to go too in-depth in this area.

We should also consider the ex-employee statements to be weighed in part in relation to the fora in which they were delivered. RPGNet, as noted in its entry (I just checked to verify) has a legacy of unfriendliness to Palladium and Siembieda himself. It could be seen as playing to their audience. (Anonymous)

I agree there should be a seperate "criticism" section, not tied directly into the financial trouble section. I also think its really sad that the pro-palladium side is unwilling to allow any contrary views to stand. TheRusty

Sorry for the confusion, I'm not a native English speaker, for me, co-worker meant "who works with" which included free-lancer. I admit my error.
The text as it is is OK for me, as several POV are expressed.
cdang|write me 09:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Personally, I think that the criticisms linked to would be more appropriate in a Kevin Siembieda article, as they are more criticisms of the man, rather than of the company, itself (though, I will admit that they are hard to separate at times). However, I do not see it as being in violation of the NPOV (though I might rearrange things, so the messages were listed below the article in a footnote, by author). ---Mr. Nexx 18:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
"Also, the aforementioned negative stories were relayed on RPGnet, which is reputed to have a severe bias [1][2][3][4] against Palladium's games and Mr. Siembieda in particular, and so may be seen as "playing to an audience"."

Honestly, I can't see a reason to have this statement in the article other than to poison the well against the statements of Messrs. Coffin, Trustum, et al. Kevin Siembieda may be a first class jerk or he may be a saint, but it's not encyclopedic to debate the value of statements made about him in the article. Iceberg3k 20:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. This appears to be a clear violation of WP:POINT. --Kralizec! (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It has absolutely nothing to do with WP:POINT, as far as I can see. There are multiple problems with it, WP:NPOV chief among them, but that isn't one of them. PurplePlatypus 23:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
As it currently is written, the criticism section runs afoul of WP:WEASEL, from the presence of that "one side of the story" line. It's a CRITICISM section, of course it's going to present the opinions of Palladium's critics. Unfortunately, the Palladium boosters are unlikely to allow the section to be rewritten without the weasel words. Iceberg3k 10:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If the statements of Messrs. Coffin & Co. are "poisoning the well" in the first place, then it is worth noting the biased medium in which they took place. Otherwise, this is coming from a singular POV and will be misunderstood that it took place in an admittedly hostile forum. 131.48.240.20 20:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Casting aspersion on the motivations of a company's critics is NOT good faith and it is not good form. Re-deleting. Iceberg3k 21:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

As-is, saying that their comments represent "one side of the story" is pushing POV-land. Going ahead after that and essentially saying that they should be disregarded because of the forum in which they were posted goes WAY across the line. Iceberg3k 21:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


As far as I'm concerned, criticism regarding KS have no place on this article in the first place, and should be another entry entirely. If they are going to be on here, it should be noted that the place in which they delivered generally nitpicks, dissects, and is overtly hostile towards the individual in question, as I have shown through said examples. It is not my idea of neutrality to post one side of an argument without any regards to context or medium. Any "line" here is of your own making. Back they go. I'm well open to compromise, however, and if there is a way to paint this in the proper light agreeable to all parties, by all means, I'm receptive. 131.48.240.20 22:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The comment regarding RPGnet, besides being based on only a selective reconstruction of RPGnet threads, is VERY POV and does not belong here. It's written for no reason other than to discredit a particular source by poisoning the well against it, and does not belong. Iceberg3k 01:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the criticism by people (only one of them a former Palladium Writer) on an internet BBS not only poison the well against Palladium, but also the integrity of this article? User: Wall


I think it is important to point out that, in the criticism section, of the four views that have been linked to (and are in dispute here because of POV), only one of them (Bill Coffin) ever worked for Palladium. The others are Freelance Writers (one was only a one time Rifter contributor), for the sake of accuracy, this should be noted. Saying that they worked for the company, when in fact they never did is erroneous.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.140.153.47 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 2006 June 13 (UTC)

I disagree. They might not have been employees of Palladium, but if they were commissioned by Palladium to do work, then they did work for Palladium, and had sufficient contact with Palladium (and Siembieda) to have a basis upon which to form their opinions. To dismiss their experience simply because they were contracted instead of permanent is specious. --Robotech_Master 18:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
They weren't commissioned to do work, only one of them was (Bill Coffin), the others submitted their work as "unsolicited." It's a big and very important difference in the publishing world. User:Bass

It should be kept in mind that most cases of Freelance Writers and Artists don't live near Palladium, and for a number of the current 'employees' the Open House was the first chance for them and Kevin to meet. Just something to remember. 75.10.9.172 06:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Shadot_otm

[edit] Printing technology

Kevin Siembieda has acknowledged (actually boasted, at times) that he doesn't do anything differently now than when he started the company. Additionally, stolen items include the transparencies from numerous books, which by his own words are needed to print more copies. Transparencies are part of the phototypesetting process but not needed for any more modern form of typesetting. Iceberg3k 22:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been further confirmed by Alex Marciniszyn, who apparently is an editor at PB and someone who still gets along well with KS, just recently in this rpg.net thread somewhere, I think around post 100. He has commented on it a couple of times there, after initially resisting doing so. So I don't mind the first part of the paragraph on printing processes staying. However, the last sentence (recently, and quite correctly, zapped by an anonymous IP starting with 83) is pure editorializing and absolutely, unconditionally not acceptable for Wikipedia. It should stay gone, as it currently is as I write this. PurplePlatypus 03:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, also per Alex M, they're progressing toward a desktop publishing model, although KS' legendary technophobia makes it a slower progression than one would normally like. So I updated the paragraph accordingly. Iceberg3k 15:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow I guess the main question I would have is: Would any of this stuff appear in a REAL encyclopedia? I say just delete the whole article. It's not that deep, folks. And those of you who seem to enjoy or relish other's misfortunes and further wish to rub salt in a wound, should find a better place to specualte than a site thats supposed to be objective. 14:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perfect Bound

While the statement that "Palladium states..." that they were the first to use perfect binding in the RPG market is strictly correct, as that is their claim,I think this section should be amended to reflect that this statement is in reality, incorrect. Chivalry & Sorcery published by Fantasy Games Unlimited (FGU) in 1977 was, in fact, perfect bound and Palladium didn't even publish their first product until 1981. --Unseelie 00:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can link a source to this discussion here proving that, you're free to take it out (and should). Or move it to a criticism section. A company claiming they're forerunners when they aren't isn't a healthy thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3 issues, Neutrality, Lawsuits, and Former Employees

First... Some people here are trying to define neutrality at times in a way Wiki's guidelines aren't intending. PoV issues and neutrality in Wiki related to issues from the poster, NOT from a person they are referencing. If a former employee of some standing for example goes to a reputable source and states something, it can be posted here and be neutral. While the employees view is negative they have the background to make it (they worked for the company and in the game industry so count as a professional in the industry being discussed) and if they do so to a source that can legitimatly be linked it's fair game because the poster is only linking what they said and thus remaining personally neutral. Otherwise criticism couldn't exist in wiki, and it exists in normal encyclopedias as well. Go to a normal encyclopedia and look at say Adolf Hitler, or Enron, or something or someone else similiar and you'll see that negative comments aren't always breaching neutrality as long as they can be sourced and don't originate with the article writer but instead from other legitimate, original sources. The important thing is only that you, the writer HERE (just like an encyclopedia writer for a real encyclopedia), who is adding to this page mantain a neutral standpoint. Even when you have something bad to say, it should be said by someone else more credible then just a poster here, and should come from a legitimate source and then linked here, never in your own words unless you are paraphrasing and linking to the original source for the full version.

Second... Palladium and FASA had a go around legally about Battletech and Robotech. Long and short US and Japanese laws had created a legal hassle which ended in Palladium winning a rather decent settlement from my understanding. I'm curious if anyone might know where to find a referable location with information on this classic case from the 1980's.

Try this one. Except Palladium had absolutely zero to do with the case; the parties involved were FASA, Playmates, and Harmony Gold. Palladium was not involved at all. --Robotech_Master 02:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thirdly... Palladium does have a reputation in the industry for losing/alienating employees. It isn't fun to talk about, but the fact is some of the companies best writers and artists have left and made it clear in various trade publications and sources for public discussion of the roleplaying industry/Palldium in particular the reason they did so was issues with managment (Siembieda yes, but other overarching issues as well). That is relevant to the company, just as it's relevant to talk about issues with companies like say Walmart that have certain reputations for and with their employees. If it is something a company does that is differant then the appreciated norm for it's industry it's fair game to discuss, even if it is just so much as to debunk it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I can dig this position...the neutral POV applies to the article instead of to the people quoted within the article. With that said; is any attempt being made to show the perspectives of those who know Kevin and have personal experiences with him? As it is, it sounds as if a few people have a bone to pick with him, and they are getting significant levels of attention, whereas others who think well of him are not. That is the POV problem that I see here. The attention is being paid only to his detractors and not his supporters, and I think that presents a biased POV. Subjugator 01:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding the perspectives of people who know Mr. Siembieda (or Mr. Coffin or anyone else for that matter) could be very tricking without violating WP:OR. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
not if those people making the comments are individuals within the industry in sources which can be linked here. sure just 'i'm some guy that met him once at a con' isn't good enough, but with something like this if one side wants to dig hard enough i can almsot guarentee you'll find some source commenting on it (actually people here have already mentioned that past and present writers have spoken up on both sides on the record at cons and for online and trade sources... it's just a matter of getting the people who say that to link what the sources they were refering to specifically were)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.132.156.26 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uniformity of footnotes

I've noticed that a bunch of the references in the article are still using the single-bracket direct link to external website style, while others are using the Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles style. I've revised a few of the direct links into citations, but it might be a good idea if people could do the rest, if and as they can get around to it.

Just a thought. --Robotech_Master 02:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/l/Talk%7EPalladium_Books_a4dc.html"