Talk:RunUO/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 RUOSI 2 Criticism removed? 3 UOXDEV 4 Current Software Team 4.1 edit 4.2 Sales pitch? 4.3 UOGamers: Rebirth 4.4 No. 4.5 Advertisements in the "Servers developed with RunUO" Section 4.6 Sources/opinions? 4.7 External links 4.8 Third-party Mediation 4.9 Major edit 5 Answers To Sydius' Arguments 6 Only RunUO-managed shards on the examples list? 7 Off topic personal attack 8 Last edits 9 A Release candidate is not a release 10 RunUO Software Link 11 Factual Accuracy (use of the term emulator) 12 Factual Accuracy (use of the term emulator) 2

RUOSI

I noticed somebody deleted the link... I have nominated RUOSI to be deleted from wikipedia, as the project seems to be dead according the webpage, and is also not much mentionworthy either. So okay, thats a reason the link should vanish. However there is not yet much feedback on the "request for comment" page to RUOSI deletion (see link on RUOSI) so if it does not get deleted, the link has to get back here un RunUO, or wikipedia would have another orphan page, since nothing else links to RUOSI. Jestix 07:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW: RUOSI has been deleted from wikipedia. Jestix 10:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism removed?

I was wondering why Criticism was removed? It simply read...

"There has also been some controversy over tactics used during the development of RunUO. 
Ryan McAdams (one of the RunUO developers) used domains similar or once owned by other 
emulators and news sites (such as uoxdev.com), and 
misled people looking for other web sites."

This can be proven as of April 5 2006 that infact uoxdev.com is owned by Ryan McAdams. I use RunUO for my shard, this is a place to get information that is full spectrum, not to get the cookie made with extra sugar. --unknown

Because the RunUO people popped in, and removed it (during an huge edit war you can see in the discussion archives also). Simple as that ;o) Please start no new edit war, just leave it away if they desire it so much. And PLEASE use ~~~~ to sign your comments! And as you said this is a place to get information, not extra sugar or contrary blubber about its history, even some past actions are not been considered as "nice" by some people. Jestix 11:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Its also inncurate. --RyanMcAdams 15:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Which has not been mentioned/discussed then. --Jestix 17:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

UOXDEV

I'm removing the whole uoxdev thing. The context in which its being used is false, misunderstood and frankly a personal attack. I really have given up caring about this wikipedia article but if you want it to be 'correct' then you need the facts. UOXDEV.com is a domain which I owned and operated. UOX basically died off and split into factions of what it was due to personal conflicts. Those of us that left and formed RunUO are still around and working on RunUO. UOXDEV.com was given a temporary page redirecting users to either Sphereserver or UOX3DEV.com which was Evilded's site for approximately 30 days or so. After that the domain was removed from apache. At that point because I didn't really do anything else with it, it was showing the default site on apache which was RunUO.com and frankly I was way to busy with RunUO to worry about 'displaying' uox text on it. What does it even matter anyway if you ask anyone who worked on UOX other than the people that left to go to RunUO Evilded was the UOX site no uoxdev.com. This whole accusation about me intentionally misleading people is false. Yes I was unhappy with some of the UOX 'developers' but so were a lot of people and if uoxdev.com is my site, and not the official site and just some 'news' site as people like to claim it was what is the big deal? Regardless its not accurate here on wikipedia, its not needed and its a personal attack. I appreciate the way you guys have worked the article and I think its turned out half way decent but its not nearly as informative as it could be. It seems the whole 'edit war' that has been referred to on here was in an attempt to lessen the RunUO project's presence and give as little information as possible rather than be accurate and descriptive. Either way good luck and have fun building it, just keep it accurate and free of personal attacks. --RyanMcAdams 15:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

With all love, "accurate and descriptive" were you edits neither, and not a strength of your "totalsite-revamp". It took a lot of rework to make out empty bla-bla words. Take for example the extremest example on RunUO.com "Most of the alternatives to RunUO refer to themselves as emulators but we consider RunUO to be a server software package. " Does say? Nothing. Empty bla-bla, you see this sentence was not on wikipedia, but the runuo page had a lot of stuff like this. Actually I think the haggle quarreling with UOX played yet an important part in the creation of RunUO, and maybe should be in the history part, not only you as siteadmin switched over, also some devs did. Evilded administration was as I watched it that times really, really bad, and you both were quarreling about ascendancy, Krrios and RunUO came just handy to switch off from Evilded. As you said, UOX was splitted into factions, and you guys created RunUO out of this, why not write it similar to this? The history like you wrote, one imagines a total different way of happenings. You cant word it on wikipedia like I did now on talk because of (my)(very) POV, but the UOX stuff/history should, I think, yet be somehow mentioned in the "Why" of creation, even if not the uoxdev.com thing explicitly. You and Evilded also fullfill the same purpose in either community, "defending the kingdom" (like for example you just did here ;o), I dont know anything about RunUO development, but he coded next to nothing on the Emulator itself but just staid around feeling important. The important difference altough is that Evil was not even capable running a website, so from that information I would even believe your story, he was to freaked up to correct the link. So okay then we let this uoxdev.com thing anyway. Jestix 17:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Your post virtually negates any participation you've made in this wikipedia entry. The only thing I did was remove what was a personal attack against me. I was not 'defending the kingdom' as you say I was just ensuring that the truth was told. RunUO was not created because of UOX. RunUO was created if you want to get down to it because we were tired of all 'emulators'. We wanted something powerful that ran out of the box for people. I find it very interesting that you hold so tightly to this Wikipedia entry to 'defend the kingdom' here on wikipedia... all for what? Wikipedia has not served the purpose it was put here to serve. The people who have written this article or rewritten this article from our rewrite of the article are the same people who are writing other 'emulator' wikipedia entries... yet what I find so funny is there's no controversy there... everyone's a happy family there. Could it be that these people just enjoy utilizing wikipedia to slam RunUO. I think so, but that's my opinion... though there is a lot of "evidence" to back that up here. I've long since given up on wikipedia and did so even before the RunUO entry was contested. Regardless Jestix you're welcome to have your little "kingdom" here. No one else wants it. I just wanted it to be free of the personal attack against me that was false. Perhaps you should also clense the non-encyclopedic jargon from every other wikipedia entry. Anyway have at it man... re-write it make it your own. You're and objective viewpoint right...? I mean since that's the case and you're a better writer for Wikipedia articles please by all means make this one better. Obviously from the way you police this you're better than everyone else. --RyanMcAdams 17:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan I do have my (non objective) point of view, and are not free from un-objectivism like anyone else. So as you see I however think objectivism can at best be achived if a lot of subjects agree togehter on one or more views. Thats the only way, and thats why I think the talk is an important aspect of wikepedia. Well as I've seen on RunUO wikipedia, most of the editors are/were in my humble opinion not wikipedians, or were their first edits on Wikipedia. And yes I also think, most cared about the wellfare of RunUO or another emulator much more than the wellfare about wikipedia. And by all love, wikipedia is not perfect, and this is not the only page that has regular quarrels/discussions etc. The "calm talk" template from wikipedia above I put on this talk site did not come from nowhere ;o) Maybe on day some RunUO Fans will fancy the site up a bit, but you are not supposed to do a lot, since you are an RunUO Admin, and I am not, since in reality I know next to nothing about RunUO. "Defending the Kingdom" was that, what EvilDed was always busy day and night for, I really don't know about you, I dont go to runuo.com very often, yet never had been in IRC. Also the history version - tired of existing emulators, make another/better one, is yet another version like the "it almost happened (unintenionally) from itself" version. --18:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As you can see I'm not editing this wikipedia article "at large" any more, but you by your own admission ARE editing it and know nothing about RunUO. How about you just leave it alone and let the people who use RunUO, know about RunUO and care about RunUO and UO emulators edit it. Sydius while not my favorite person is more qualified to write a RunUO Wiki article. My feelings toward Sydius are not personal they are merely from my experiences with him. I've never even talked to him, nor about him but I got blasted by him time and again in the past. Regardless of that I would ask that you let the people who know and care about RunUO build this rather than you who admittedly knows nothing about it. --RyanMcAdams 19:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"but I got blasted by him time and again in the past" ... When? --Sydius 21:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I know, care about and love wikipedia (aswell other wikis), not about RunUO, UOX or any other emulator. I do and will take care that the article keeps encyclopedic value. I, by my admission, think that Im able to follow some of the endeavors of the wikipedia project. In my opinion ideally people should write the article in larger scale who know well about RunUO (or yet better just researched about it in order to write the article), but do neither pamper(love) or disregard about it, but do care about wikipedia, have a cool distance to the project, have a bit of a scientific background, good exact language and keep the article "wikipedish". Thats in total neither you nor me, nor Zippy (I guess aka MrSparkle, is that right?) nor some kids that come here over from runuo.com thinking they have to fight the browser wars here (see archived discussion) and think they do a GoodThing(TM) for RunUO. --Jestix 21:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I do share your view, that the article is scarce und uninformative. As hypothetical person who would never heared anything about emulators, I don't think after reading this wikipedia site he would feel really any smarter. Yet in Principle its still the page from you, you did in the total-revamp, but cleansed from all that was non-encyclopedic (personal opinion again: so there was just only this you see now left which was real information). --Jestix 17:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

When I originally wrote the criticism section, I was new to Wikipedia and was not a very good Wikipedian. I based what I wrote off memory, not from actual sources. Obviously, that was wrong of me, and now that I know that, I am not fighting to have it added back, including that comment, without some kind of reference. I believe what Ryan said, it makes sense to me anyway, but we cannot include that in the article unless we find a third-party credible source that mentions the same thing. Can that clarification be found somewhere else, like on the RunUO web site? Maybe you could publish it, Ryan, and then we can cite it.--Sydius 21:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Current Software Team

I vote to take that section away. Remember a wikipedia page should not considered to be a remote advertisment sign or such (or in the opposite as "warning" sign). It should be an information base, for the uninformed user, like someone that somewhere on the web overreads the word "RunUO" and asks himself "What the hack is that?". Thats where wikipedia comes in, and gives a short an meaningfull explanation (an issue in my humble opinion the current Homepage design of RunUO itself fails a bit, all you get on the first glimplse is news, someone not even knowing what this is about will not understand much, but well wikipedia is there to help out! ;o)). If he is interesed in that "RunUO" beyond this simple question, further references should be listed, thats where the RunUO Webpage and others can jump in, but not wikipedia itself. Wikipedia should however leave the user with the most possible neutral collection of further readings, the reader can then decide if he wants to follow a specific path. (Infos that are not supposed to be in wikipedia is like to inform him how to actually run a shard, or what are the """"""official""""" shards, and such). However also to the question "What/Who the hack is RunUO?" The *current* dev-team does to my projection not even matter remotely to that sorf of reader just plumbing by. Jestix 08:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The section provides one of the 5 Ws (the "Who?"). It would be important for someone coming to this page to know who is making the software (as well as what it is and why it is, which are already covered in the article). --MrSparkle17 03:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear MrSparkle. I have put this discussion topic on the talk page, and waitet several weeks about comments, nobody said anything in all the time, so no need to make a consensus, and I deleted it. you on the other hand, come here and change without any comment in seconds into that what you think is right. Honestly wikipedia is not a surrogate of the RunUO Homepage, if just want to credit People do it there. Really I do recognize you from reading the RunUO Forums (dont worry I dont post there) that you are affiliatet with RunUO, so watch you objectivism! The wikipedia page is not to be considered as an advertisment, but an information broker. So the standard reader of wikipedia reads about a "Krrios" and a "Zippy" and so, and thinks, so what? I just wanted to know what a server-emulator is. As has been discussed in past a lot, wikipedia is not a place to do dynamic listings, if things that are currently in place. (Like a shard-list is a definite no-no). You are right when you say, I just edit for feelings, yes everybody does, by all NPOV its not completly avoidable, but so do you also! (As I see it also in the other text, to put more worshipping to "RunUo Software Team", but I on the contrary use the talk first on difficult topics, so everybody can put in his feeling!

To the introduction part, that RunUO is made by the RunUO-team. Thats a null-information. Guess what? GCC is made by the GCC-Team. KDE is made by the KDE-Team. UOX is made by the UOX-Team. Mediawiki is made by the Mediawiki-Team ... list can be extended indefinitly. I guess the normal reader knows that X-Software is made by the X-Team ;o) Also a reason why I now reverted your edit now, is because you did not just put the software team back in as you wrote in the summary, but reverted other changes also! Pleaset take care about the use of the word "official". Actually nothing here is official, as "official" refers to governmental institions with sovereign rights. It not a handy word to use in topics like this.

I would like you know why you think you know me from reading the RunUO.com forums. Don't automatically assume everyone is biased just because you are. Also a lot of the changes you made were gramatically incorrect or just confusing. I notice that the latest page looks much better, and I agree with the current changes to the "Who" rather than "Current" --MrSparkle17 04:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Why I asume everyone is somehow biased? Cause it happens that I deal with epistemology. Every person cannot hinder that he has some kind of personal background. You can try to, but you cannot completly turn it off. The best thing you can do, is to be aware of, that in some form you are biased. Everyone even browsing here, has to have some kind of interest, or he would not even be on a this very page. The who is now still a current. --Jestix 05:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I really try to be objective, as you will notice in the history I also defended the page against run downs on RunUO. But I also try to take care it does not become an adulation. Jestix 07:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To a section "current software" I will stay opposed, say for example one retires, has he to be delteted then? According to the section title yes. That cannot be right. If at all, you can talk with me about creating "major contributions" or such. Jestix 07:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I just browsed the "new" runuo.com site. BTW: How often does the side get revempted? Every few months? This is the x-ths revamp since I started looking at it years ago. Can it be, the "Current Development Team" is not even mentioned there!?!?! (why should it then here?) Jestix 08:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think a "who" section is important. --Sydius 14:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay then guys, so well make one, thats what talk is about ;o). But please I do ask you, dont call it current Software Team, but "Major Contributions" or such similar to your likens, and secondly please with Real Names . (for example also a "Nickname" cannot hold (even GPL) copyright.) And also when creating, dont revert other past changes with it (like the bogus word "official", or the Team-Project neoplasma, that are other controversial edits, so please keep the controversions seperate)! However I still do see a problem writing a Who section, if the who wants to be anonymous ;o) (like Krrrios it seemed in the past version of the section) Jestix 15:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed at [1] a software team section has been added, nice to see the discussion here has effects ;o) -Jestix 21:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

edit

I removed the comment about the walking engine having been better than in any other emulator at the time -- I think there needs to be sources and proof to back this claim up. --Sydius 17:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sales pitch?

I wasn't trying to give a sales pitch, I was trying to explain how it worked, the features, etc. =/ I spent a lot of time editing it and doing my best to be neutral, and looking at other wiki entries to see how they did it.

My first wikipedia entry, and probably my last after that. ;P What parts, exactly, did you feel were a sales pitch, and why?

Clarification:

The "Why is this a sales pitch" comment was left by me. I wrote the original RunUO wikipedia entry, found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RunUO&oldid=8604871 (Ok, that's the edited version of the original entry, I did some touch-ups. And wrote a better one after the hack job: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RunUO&oldid=8643403 )

A day later the entry was edited by a 'DavidWBrooks', who cut my original 1.5 page article down to two sentences and called my entry a 'sales pitch'.

That's what the 'sales pitch' reference was about, not about some link or whatever.

(To anyone who gets upset because I'm linking to previous editions of the article, it's rather hard to make my point without them.)

I understand that brevity was essential in printed encyclopedias due to the costs of publication. I believe the internet allows us to be more comprehensive, ( see: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=encyclopedia ) covering subjects in greater depth and detail.

Ok, granted, my original article was clumsy, poor-quality, and lacked features like a table of contents as I couldn't find the new entry template on the convoluted wikipedia site. It was the first wikipedia article I had ever written. And, as I said before, after seeing the rather poisonous wikipedia community in action, it's likely my last on this site.

The table of contents is added automatically when there are three or more sections on the page. I know, not the point, just FYI. --Sydius 17:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Ultima Online (meaning not just the game, but emulators, discussion forums, fansites, etc) seems to attract both the best and the worst of the online community. Anyone reviewing the history of this wiki entry can see that. It's been bad even by wikipedia standards.

But there's something I need to say:

I literally grew up playing the Ultima single-player games, so I tend to be passionate about the subject. What it comes down to is that UO represented a potential, one that was squashed by EA as they floundered around with a game series that they didn't understand and a community that they only saw as a piggy bank. A potential that I feel was never reached until RunUO gave me the ability to reach it myself, and did it better than any server emulator had ever done before. (Now THAT'S a sales pitch. ;)

- Alari, a RunUO private shard admin and occasional amateur script submitter. 02/07/2006

UOGamers: Rebirth

Rebirth is the best UO server out there. Obviously it's ran on RunUO for superior performance. <snip> <- This is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement forum.

No.

How is that a "sales" pitch? - RunUO user.

Response: I'm sorry, but how is "obviously it is ran (sic) on RunUO for surprior performance" NOT a sales pitch. The article treats it as a foregone conclusion that RunUO is "superior" and in addition advertises the shard itself. Lavareef 20:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a better idea for displaying the ability of RunUO would be to post features of the software that are not available on rival products, not posting advertisements to the "official" servers of the software. There are many servers using RunUO out there, and they cannot all be linked here. This is in no way fair to those servers who are also using RunUO, and posting the official servers is un-needed. --WarAngel 18:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but left them (modified) to avoid a revert war until some more consensus is made. --Sydius 21:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sydius, just leave the page alone, and no one will be forced to put a hit on you for constantly defacing the RunUO page, and harassing Ryan. -paco

He isn't harassing anyone. There are a number of users against the way this page is written and would simply like to see it reworded. Don't be so childish, please. --WarAngel 15:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok this is coming from a neutral point of view as I've tried several different UO servers out and types and blah blah blah. What he said about Obviously it is ran on runUO does kind of sound like a sales pitch sort of ...but hes right runUO is the best out there I've seen. It's easy to use and has a very good support area around networking and whathave you. So you guys can argue as much as you'd like about this subject, but I haven't seen a error that was untrue yet so its not so much as a opinion I'm starting to see it as a fact.

It isn't about how good the emulator is. I agree that it is a wonderful emulator. The point is that this is an encyclopedia, and as such, must be written in a neutral stance. --WarAngel 04:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Advertisements in the "Servers developed with RunUO" Section

Something needs to be done about this section. It has been the subject of constant edits to add/remove misc server listings, and reverted back again more times than necessary. Either the entire section needs to be removed, or it needs to be 100% clear of advertisements. Currently, this is not the case as it seems to simply be a free showcase for the "official runuo servers". --Ravatar

Sources/opinions?

"Shortly there after, they started to grasp the power of what they had been working on and decided to share it with the rest of the world. The next step was picking a name for the software. After a couple of days of tossing around names, they decided to make it as simplistic as possible, naming the software after its sole purpose for existing... "running UO"."

Saying that they 'started to grasp the power of what they had been working on" is an opinion of the writer. The writer, and "they", may be the same person, and it therefore may be true, but in the context of Wikipedia, you may not express your own opinion. You can cite a source, which says the above, but otherwise, it remains the opinion of the writer.

The second sentence is also an opinion. Is it a provable fact that it was indeed the next step to pick a name? What if the next step was actually "get a beer from the fridge, watch the Simpsons, and THEN pick a name"? Again, you may have first-hand knowledge of what the next step actually was, but you cannot word it that way, since it implies the author's opinion of what the next step was, and not the staff's opinion. Either cite a source, or reword it. I think this sentence could be removed altogether.

The third sentence is also an opinion. It would be better if you quoted a source, or reworded it. I will not bother repeating myself; I think you get the idea. --Sydius 22:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to continue personal disputes with the software and its owners. Find your own place for this, please.

On the topic of the actual article, I agree with Sydius that more sources are needed. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a place for non-biased entries about a piece of software. While I am a RunUO user and would love to see RunUO glorified, this just is not the place. The article should be written in as much of an unbiased way as possible, while still providing useful information about the project. --WarAngel 18:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

External links

What does EasyUO or Razor have to do with RunUO? --Sydius 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Third-party Mediation

I have requested third-party mediation from the Mediation Cabal. --Sydius 19:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good, they obviously allow the Mono team to use the exact same format we are using, so our format should not be an issue. Sydius you're a trite person... you really are. You have nothing to do with RunUO so why do you even care what the Wikipedia for RunUO says? Have I gone into the UOX3 Wiki that you've written and added uoxdev.com to it? No because I'm not involved in UOX any more. I think it's hilarious that you're from a "competing emulator", and you host a "competing emulators" website yet you edit OUR Wikipedia entry. We don't edit your Wikipedia entry, if anything you're completely biased. It's a shame that you've had to stoop to such low levels to try to irritate me, but alas you have. I can only hope that the Wikipedia team will be able to look at this and realize that someone who hosts a project competing against RunUO is trying to censor what the RunUO team is putting together for its Wikipedia entry. We've done a good job of staying neutral and have actually gotten help from members of other emulator teams to ensure we are nuetral. Thanks for your interest in the Wikipedia entry for RunUO, but please when you're editing a Wiki based on our information leave your affiliation with UOX3 at the door. Regards, Ryan

Ryan, Wikipedia-page do NOT belong to anyone! You may edit "others" wikipedia entries, as well they may edit "your" wikipedia entry, while in fact there is absolutely no "others" and no "yours". Wikipedia is supposed to be a NPOV - Neutral Point of View, which realisticly can only be reached when both "parties" come to a consens about a page. 131.130.37.195 11:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I host UOX because they pay me for hosting. I do not endorse, support, or even use UOX. I authored the UOX Wikipedia entry because I felt it was missing, but if you note, I have also edited almost every page relating to Ultima Online in general. I have used UOX in the past, yes, but I have also used POL, LoneWolf, WolfPack, Sphere (and also TUS). I am not a member of the UOX development team, I have not contributed anything to the code there, and I would be glad if you did contribute to the UOX Wikipedia entry. The more contributors, the better! If you notice, I even added a criticism page there myself, as I am no huge fan of it myself. --Sydius 19:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The primary issues I have with this page are the following:

• The links in the shard list seem inappropriate for an encyclopedia. They are examples of the use of the software, yes, but they are more obviously advertisements for shards.
• Much of it is worded as a brochure might be worded. One example is the part about the team making RunUO the best it can be -- is that necessary for an encyclopedia? There are more examples, but they all follow that same tone.
• The criticism section was completely deleted.
• There are many grammatical mistakes, which I fixed some of, but were reverted.
• There are very few sources, facts, or anything but opinions from the finger tips of the person who is also the author of the software, which naturally biases it. According to Wikipedia guidelines, you are not to author a page about something that you also invented.

Both I and Ryan have reverted the page three times, which is the limit according to Wikipedia's guidelines. That is why I submitted it to third-party mediation.

--Sydius 19:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sydis, in your own words you stated "I have nothing to gain by any of this, except a better Wikipedia for all." It is my belief more information is better than less. Also, it would be closer to your role to edit incorrect or intolerable information not remove it. You also stated “For example, he says it started a labor of love. That is an opinion, because nobody can prove that. He could write, "According to ____, it was begun as a labor of love"” Instead of editing this section to be more compliant with the code, you removed it and left no equivalent or relevant information.

If you want a better Wikipedia, stop deleting information and put your effort into expanding on the current content so that it follows your interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines. Instead of calling a link to a runuo shard website an advertisement and deleting it, go to the site, spot the references (The many features and uses the shard has been able to incorporate because of runuo software) and add to the information around the link (I do believe you stated this should be done anyway). Many more examples of you removing good information instead of editing it to follow guidelines could be put here, but we all get the idea. - Altiric

Interesting point of view I guess. I have no idea what Criticism section you're referring to, I'm not concerned with grammar errors. There are two sources posted, (again as an example the Mono team has 3, 2 of which they own). I did not invent RunUO, Krrios was the inventor of RunUO. There are no empty sections in the Wikipedia any more. This is not a brochure it is an accurate assesment of RunUO's beginnings, where it is at and where it is headed. We've been asked numerous times to assist with this Wikipedia entry and we did. -Ryan

The former criticism section can be found in the last revision made by myself before your major edit took place. It may need to be toned down, granted, but I still believe it is warranted, since there have been numerous such criticisms of RunUO from many places. References should be found for such criticisms before they are put back into the article, but I still believe they have their place, just as the criticism section of any Wikipedia article has its place. I see that you did not personally remove it, so you are not to blame, at any rate. Maybe we should collaborate on a criticism section that does not include personal attacks or generalized statements, but still sheds light on what others have criticized about the software and community.

As for grammatical errors, they can almost entirely be avoided through the use of software such as Microsoft Word (if you have it and are willing to use it). There is an option for grammar checking, which highlights any grammatical mistakes in green.

As for the sources, there is nothing wrong with posting the official web site as a source. I just believe that other sources, which are not biased in any one direction, should be added as well. I see that you added the reference to an archived version of the Smithys Anvil, would you mind using Harvard style references, so that it is clear which parts are referenced from that web site, and which parts are referenced from the official web site? If not Harvard, then some other notation for referencing? As it stands, it is difficult to decipher which parts came from which web site. Were the references from Smithys Anvil references to articles that were written by any member of the RunUO staff?

Using the Mono team as an example is irrelevant, since there are many thousands of examples of what not to do that are abundant on Wikipedia. Just because another section does something a certain way, does not mean it is okay for the rest of the Wikipedia or even okay for that article in particular. That is not a particularly illuminating example of how to cite sources or references.

From the Wikipedia guideline on What Wikipedia is not:

"Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable."

If you find third party reputable sources that verify the claims made in the article, then fine. You listed Smithy's Anvil, but did not make apparent which parts came from it, and I do not see any mention of relevant data that backs what is said in the article that was not published on that site as a direct or indirect communication from the RunUO staff.

As for you personally inventing RunUO, I did not mean it that way. The RunUO staff created RunUO (even if it was just one person in the beginning), and you are very clearly a major contributor to the continual creation of RunUO software and services. The fact that you are yourself mentioned in the very article many times is a clear indication that it might be much more appropriate to have a third party at least review and edit the article (which is what I attempted to do).

For the brochure argument, I will point out this line:

"Shortly there after they started to grasp the power of what they had been working on and decided to share it with the rest of the world."

Besides the implications of extreme power or that it would do the world a service to share it, this entire statement is an opinion, and therefore cannot be published in the Wikipedia. It could be reworded in way like this: "The RunUO staff stated that ....insert quote about the above, with a source..." but you need a source of them actually having said that, too.

Finally, it is great that you want to help Wikipedia, but doing so within the guidelines of Wikipedia would be much more beneficial to everybody. I will remove the list entry about empty sections, since you have removed it. --Sydius 21:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Major edit

Completely cleaned up the entire wiki, adding information based on the start of RunUO, its actual history, the evolution and the architecture. The RunUO team is working on adding as much information as possible and will be updating it over the coming days and do our best to maintain. -Ryan

It seems very biased, not verified, and original research, so I flagged the page. The only source is that of the author, and is biased. Also, the linking to shards seems non-encyclopedic, and commercialism, at least how it is written now. --Sydius 17:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, however we have worked to keep the page very unbiased. The linking to shards is there to showcase the servers using RunUO. It would seem to me that your issue is not with the content, however it is based on your bias toward other projects. -Ryan

Do not remove the warnings until the page can be reviewed by more people. --Sydius 18:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, you need verifiable sources other than your own web site. --Sydius 18:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I started taking out the parts that seem the most non-encyclopedic, but it still needs work. --Sydius 18:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sydius,

I'll gladly allow you to insert your warnings but please do not revert and remove the work our team is doing. Your issue with this site is a personal issue and it is not based on the content or rules.

Regards, Ryan

It is not personal, and I did not simply delete anything, I am working to edit it to something we can both agree on. If I wanted to just revert it, I would have reverted it to the version before your major edit, but I did not. --Sydius 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely believe this is personal... there is nothing in those links against the policies of Wikipedia, and if you look at the Mono teams Wiki it has PLENTY of examples of users.

I don't see how anything thats currently on the page could in anyway be against the policies of Wikipedia -WER

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links regarding the external links. As for the rest, it carries a tone of bias as well as non-encyclopedic infortmation. --Sydius 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Be specific. Vague arguments are not proper in this situation. -Ryan

Darth Sydius dies in eiposde 6! - Luke Skywalker

You are thinking of Darth Sidious... --Sydius 01:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the rest, you can see the specifics of what I deem non-encyclopedic by viewing what I edited. --Sydius 19:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a question for you Sydius what makes you the professional on what is encyclopedic or not? And what makes you the person to decide whether or not RunUO's Wikipedia is within the bounds(rules) or not? - Karmageddon(RunUO user)

I am not an expert, and it does not take an expert to see what is wrong with this article. Everything I have said is backed by well-established Wikipedia guidelines, some of which I have posted links to. You are free to read them for yourself. However, that is why I asked for mediation -- because I may be wrong, and so may Ryan. --Sydius 01:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Karmageddon, you have to think of this as an encyclopedia article (as this is an encyclopedia). What is currently on that page is not the kind of stuff you would see if you were to open up an encyclopedia book and look at some articles. --WarAngel 11:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Answers To Sydius' Arguments

The links in the shard list seem inappropriate for an encyclopedia. They are examples of the use of the software, yes, but they are more obviously advertisements for shards.

Advertising is One Thing....Showing the Progression and Achievements of Someone's Creation are a Different Story. They Obviously Worked Hard on this Without Payment, and the Shards Listed are Examples Of his Hard Work that the World Can See...Not Advertisements. Is The 1950s Coke Bottle in a Museum an Advertisement Just Cause it has a Brand Name On It?

The links are in clear violation of the Wikipedia external links policy. Wikipedia is not a museum or a showcase, it is an encyclopedia. Unless the link has information about RunUO that would enrich the information here, and not just a shard that uses RunUO, it is against the external link policy. --Sydius 04:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Look in any Encyclopedia, you will see pictures, diagrams and illustrations, and other examples of the subject being described. HTML just provides the oppurtunity for a more interactive approach to the same end. External links also provide for Cross Referncing which is also common in encyclopedias....if you want old fashioned encyclopedias than buy a set, this is the direction technology is going. --Anti-Basic 06:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What Sydius is saying is relevant to Wikipedia guidelines. If you do not like the guidelines, you are free to not submit an edit to an article or to set up your own source of information. What you are not free to do is ignore the guidelines. Lavareef 20:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines are meant to Guide, Rules are set in stone--Anti-Basic 23:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly true, and there could very well be exceptions to all of the guidelines, but everything in debate here is far from the realm of fulfilling the needed justification to warrant a breaking from those guidelines.--Sydius 17:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Much of it is worded as a brochure might be worded. One example is the part about the team making RunUO the best it can be -- is that necessary for an encyclopedia? There are more examples, but they all follow that same tone.

They're Simply Describing the Ambition and Effort they Put Into this Project

That is fine, if they do so from a neutral point of view. I do not believe this was done, and indeed, it is nearly impossible to do when you write about your own project (which is why doing so is against the Wikipedia recommendation). --Sydius 04:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Because you are the perfect example of neutral. Wait..just a minute ago you said it was AGAINST wikipedia's POLICY...now you are saying it is just against their RECCOMENDATION...you are manipulating and in some cases, making up wiki rules for own personal gain...that's neutral alright... Also as he and many others have said Ryan is not the maker of runUO if you actually downloaded the runuo source in each C# file the header says clearly Kirrios. does not mention ryans name anywhere... --Anti-Basic 06:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have mentioned links to many of the guidelines I have referenced, and more can be found if you click the "help" section in the menu. As for Ryan creating UO, he is a member of the staff, if I am not mistaken, and has thus contributed to the creation of RunUO, even if he has never written a single line of code. He is a member of the staff, and therefore inherently biased. --Sydius 17:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section was completely deleted.

Probably Because of Incompetent Fools Who Can't Keep Their Opinions to Themselves

There are many grammatical mistakes, which I fixed some of, but were reverted.

If You Can Understand It Well Enough to Correct it You Understood What He Meant And Therefore Grammar Is Not That Bad. Besides, How Many People Use Perfect Grammar When Not Taking a Test. You Don't Use Words Like "Whom" in Everyday Conversation. Also, if You Can Find Me ONE Wiki Entry that has Perfect Grammar, I'll Give You a Gold Star

If there is ever a place for proper grammar, is it in an encyclopedia. --Sydius 04:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a normal encyclopedia, this an international web-based user-edited encyclopedia. Being international, you will get many people who do not all speak same language, you will also get many people with different educational and cultural backgrounds so it would be impossible for wikipedia to be grammatically perfect, not to mention, i understood it and so did you obviously...you have a habit of ignoring the main parts of my arguments and only responding to my side comments. --Anti-Basic 06:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should maintain a professional quality, and allowing users to refine articles is one way in which this is hoped to be achieved. "How many people use perfect grammar when not taking a test" is a horrible argument, and one which should not even be ventured here.

I did not mean that directly, what i meant is that he is simply using the grammar as an excuse to edit the page, also as i said, many wiki entries have incorrect grammar and sydius is only naziing this one. If grammar were the main point of encyclopedias, you'd have many people speaking correct english about stuff they don't know about. An encyclopedias primary purpose is to inform as a dictionary's primary purpose is to define. many people use them however, to check spelling and usage, but that is not their main purpose--Anti-Basic 23:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that it was their main purpose, and I certainly have not said that it is the primary issue with the article. As for the implication that I have only been editing this article -- look in the history section of any entry in Wikipedia in the Ultima Online category, and you are very likely to see my name. --Sydius 17:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There are very few sources, facts, or anything but opinions from the finger tips of the person who is also the author of the software, which naturally biases it. According to Wikipedia guidelines, you are not to author a page about something that you also invented.

Think it Also Says Something About Going Nazi on Someone Elses Page for Equally Biased Reasons Somewhere in There Too.

It is not Ryan's page. This is Wikipedia, and Ryan does not own the article any more than I or you do. --Sydius 04:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I know it is not his page....no one owns the internet. it is however his and other individuals software which the article is about. You keep saying this or that is within wikipedia's rules, but that doesn't matter. the fact is you are trying to discredit a person's creation and are manipulating the rules of the medium used to do it with. I'm curious to know why you are so hung up over this particular article. you say you have no loyalty to other emulator's, however you chose this page to edit. There are many wikis with grammatical errors on them, if you have no biases why choose the RunUOs. Also do you not have anything better to do with your time? Do you Realize you are arguing with a 17 year old about the ethics of editing a public domain article? --Anti-Basic 06:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC) ICQ#: 190-446-255 I Welcome your Rebuttals.

What he says is correct. The text you enter is public domain, and free to be taken, removed or amended in accordance with the Wikipedia rules. Said rules apply across the site, and many are set up to specifically deal with disputes such as this one. Ignorance of the regulations or a dislike of what they state does not allow you to ignore them. The rules are specifically designed to benefit Wikipedia users by ensuring a higher standard of article, they simply cannot be "manipulated" by an individual to get the result he so desires. Lavareef 20:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is, but are those senators in the right for using wiki to sway votes? And yes rules can be and are manipulated all the time, LAWS are manipulated all the time, and that is exactly what sydius is doing. If you make a law in any country, people will find a way to manipulate it or get around it, its a fact of life.--Anti-Basic 23:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No, they are not in the right, and doing so would be against the Wikipedia guidelines. Yes, it does happen, and yes, it is nearly impossible to imagine an organization in which such things do not happen, but that does not mean no effort that can be made should be made to prevent such activities. As for the implication that I am the perpetrator to such activities, I have done nothing but attempt to uphold the very limits and checks in place that prevent those things. I have nothing to gain by any of this, except a better Wikipedia for all. --Sydius 17:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion I don't see how the page can be biased from what I know, RunUo has the largest community out of any of the other Uo Emulators out there it is easy to use and the members of the community also contribute to the quality and advancement of the product and everyone in the community is proud of what RunUo has become. As for the links to the runuo sponsored shards, isn't a encylopedia supposed to provide examples? What better examples than shards made by the RunUo dev team that match and almost compleatly emulate OSI shards? To me this is just showing what RunUo is capable of.

16:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)GodHand (Proud RunUo User) 10:37AM(CST) Feb, 06, 2006

what better examples

Mentioning and describing successful shards, with facts and references, is great. Simply linking to those shards with a one-line statement more alike to an ad than anything else, is non-encyclopedic and against the Wikipedia guidelines. --Sydius 17:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As for Ryan creating UO, he is a member of the staff, if I am not mistaken, and has thus contributed to the creation of RunUO, even if he has never written a single line of code.

Does that mean that every person that contributed to the creation of RunUO should not help write the entry? I know I've contributed, as well as a few other thousand people that have submitted their custom scripts that have contributed to the advancement of RunUO. Should we all not be allowed to tell the history? A Li N 11:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you should contribute, and Ryan should contribute, but Ryan should not write the initial article, and must be especially careful to avoid bias, since he has, so far as I know, been far more involved (and thus likely to be biased) than a lot of people have. Contributing a few lines of code may bias you slightly, but contributing enough to warrant your name being mentioned a couple times in the article itself is certainly enough involvement to justify stepping back and letting a third party do most of the article for the fear of bias and opinion. Ryan did a better job than many people would have, in his situation, and it is honorable that he should work on the Wikipedia article, but you cannot have so many opinions stated in it, and some of it does or did seem biased to me. As it stands now, it is still filled with opinions, which may be true considering he has first-hand experience with the situations of which he describes, but it is nevertheless improper to state them as opinions.

For example, he says it started a labor of love. That is an opinion, because nobody can prove that. He could write, "According to ____, it was begun as a labor of love" because that is verifiable -- it is verifiable that somebody, at some time, said that. There is a huge difference there, and that same pattern is repeated throughout the article. Sydius said that he can understand why, if they were your opinions, that it would seem silly to quote or reference yourself, but it is nevertheless required if you are going to include opinions at all. --Sydius 15:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sydius it sounds to me like you are biased against Runuo. I dont see how anything you have editted has contributed to this article. I have been reading this article since it was first added and nothing in the initial nor subsequent articles was biased. Kethoth

Yes it is biased. You have to take a step away from the RunUO Community standpoint and look at it like an encyclopedia. If you look at an encyclopedia and then you look at this site, the articles are not the same style. That's pretty much all Sydius is concerned about, and I couldn't agree more. --WarAngel 11:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

To deny someone immediately involved in the creating of a program or any item of any kind is to actually break the encyclopedia rules....think about the bible for instance it is mentioned in the encyclopedias...and to many its considered bias...but that didn;t seem to stop it from being entered into the Encyclopedia now did it? I understand rules this and rules that, but who else is going to be able to provide this kind of information that isn't directly involved? No one that hasn't been directly involved would know as much as someone who was. Therefore, it should be entered into a Wikipedia because it is called "History" of the specified product and the company who created it. Just because it might simply be their Point of View over it doesnt stop it from being able to be in a wikipedia. After all every single person that creates and simple suggestion on here is "their opinion" even if they do have references and whatnot it still lies as their opinion and if you can prove otherwise I would literally crap myself because that is extremely unlikely to prove it wrong. If you feel his page is biased then prove it...deleting the page or whatever doesnt correct anything if you want to correct it..justify it or edit it to be accurate..deleting doesnt fix things it just makes it more vague. Leave the original post for people to see and then the added comments and what have you to provide any room for error correction so people can create their own opinion which is technically what I am seeing here. Again a wikipedia will never completely outwrite a regular encyclopedia simply because it is written and will last forever, but the internet will not always be here I assure you because any simple accident can deny access to the internet a wikipedai isnt created by philosophicals and scientists or even history experts. It is created though a single individual, as well as, multiple individuals thoughts and expressions. And if you can provide us with some sort of document providing us with your expertise on history, writing, or linguistic skills then i suggest we leave this as a matter of opinion and make this wikipedia better instead of bickering like small children on a matter as frivolious as this.

No one is attempting to deny Ryan. Read all of the posts again. --WarAngel 04:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Only RunUO-managed shards on the examples list?

I don't see a reason for there to only be servers managed by the RunUO team on the examples list. If indeed the list serves as an example of what can be done with RunUO, what does the ownership of said example have to do with anything? I propose that the "Angel Island" server be re-added as an example shard, as it shows that RunUO can be used to create games which have vastly different rules from the official servers. I see no reason why one "unofficial" shard should cause "conflict", I think this is a nonsense reason. Lavareef 17:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have one non-official server listed, then everybody will want to list his or hers, too. Why should one have precedence over another? Well, in the end, we would end up with a big list of unofficial servers that are nothing but advertisements. Besides, the way I had originally worded it, I was trying to make it not an example list, but a list of other things under the name "RunUO". I am not entirely convinced that the official servers should even be there. The line between an "example" and an "advertisement" is very fine when it comes to external links, and if you want to show how customizable RunUO is, write a few paragraphs about it, put it in a new section talking about ways to customize RunUO, and that would be much more informative than simply a link to some server which employs customized features. --Sydius 18:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My original intention with listing another shard was to downplay the idea that the section is advertising. I think that RunUO's capabilities should be documented, but I agree that one-line descriptions of shards may not be the best way to go about it. Does anyone have any suggestions? Lavareef 10:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have proposed before that a list of features replace the shard list. That way there is no possibility of blatant advertisement, yet the abilities are still showcased. I not have a full list of features, but if anyone were to write one, I would not see why this would displease either side. --WarAngel 15:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just curious but why would you want to show examples of different UO shards when we are talking about a specific one....thats like walking into the Ford car factory and saying ok guys lets go by the example of Chevrolet and try to make our cars like theirs. However, I would suggest a link to the other wikipedia sites created by the other UO emulators so people can read their thoughts about their program. A wikipedia is the last thing most people look at on the internet for information because it is so vague and supressed by rules that are biased themselves.

What on earth are you talking about? That was a terrible analogy, and how do you have any idea how many people use Wikipedia as their first source of reference? --WarAngel 18:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This discussion part does not matter, since Wikipedia will not hold any shard-lists whatsoever. One simple reason: So there are no longer quarrels which shard may be listed /not listed ;o) Jestix 19:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Off topic personal attack

I really thought the last years you have possibly grown, and I slowly regrew a lot of respect toward you, since i didn't see you close the thread on your forum, nor bann one of the discussant. However I'm now crestfallen to see that nothing has changed. Jestix 21:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Are personal attacks about me 'growing up' necessary in this discussion? I would like an apology for that. I'm discussing the facts and the perception of what I see going on here. I'm not going around saying that you're childish or anything like that I am simply discussing your actions. --RyanMcAdams 21:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

May I quote "Oh and Jestix over @ Wikipedia is an idiot." What more is there to say? Jestix 21:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What is said on a website I own and what is said on Wikipedia are two totally seperate things. RunUO.com is something I own. Wikipedia is not. I do not use the Wikipedia resources to make ill remarks toward you I simply articulate the issues I see with your logic and the way you're handling your duty as a Wikipedia contributor to an article that is largely about a project I have spent many years on. --RyanMcAdams 21:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually not, since this wikipage is about RunUO and the things around it. Treat me with respect, and I will treat you with respect. You asked for an apology? I just said I'm disappointed that some typical behaviour did not change. You called me an idiot, and then thinking I cannot see it anymore since you banned me, playing false games here. Please apologice, then we may treat each other with respect again. I was not the one that started attacking. Jestix 21:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My post on my website came after your attack here. I've also adjusted my post to more accurately depict the situation. --RyanMcAdams 21:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No I did not, i'm not that stupid to mismatch time.

Now we don't discuss things happening on your webpage on wikipedia. Thats really not for, this talk page is about the article and that was it. Jestix 21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want unbann my ip and we can talk over there. I don't think the relation here went into anything good due to this actions. So I'm now even more convinced to not let go. Thank you for the revelation I experienced. Jestix 21:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW: don't wait for me to log in again... I may be stupid enough to put up with this all, but I'm not that stupid. Don't tell me to take a look when you disabled anonymous view for just this one thread. I sense it as dishonest behaviour... Jestix 21:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Again with the personal attacks. its not possible to disable guest viewing for one thread. If you want to speak about dishonesty why dont we speak about you carrying two nams on Wikipedia and using them to create a 'server emulator' article. That's dishonest. You're not a RunUO user. You don't know anything about it. You're not following Wikipedia guidelines. Allow OTHER people to edit this article for the good of Wikipedia. Stop letting your pride get in the way. I was "grown up" enough to let the article go... why can't you be? --RyanMcAdams 22:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I imagined you would ban me if you knew that realko=jestix. And right I was. But as you saw I did not long care enough and simply soon forgot about that realko sockpuppet. And I do let other people edit the page, just view history! (other than some of zippies rather biased edits). Jestix 22:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Call me stupid, but why was a able to first view your "nice" post as an anonymous, and now i can't? Jestix 23:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Look following deal: You start acting like a grown up with respect and tollerance to others (including me, meaning unbanning), for example also not using your admin-power to give your "reasoning" the ultimate word like an angry "god"), i will too act like a grown up with respect to you and RunUO software, and we both as well zippy, kyrros and asaire & co leave the article mostly in peace, and leave it up to the users to maintain. Deal? Jestix 22:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have nothing better to do than troll a Wikipedia entry? I've acted like a grownup through this. I came to the talk page here to discuss this with you. It's completely obvious that "reasoning" with you is out of the picture. You don't/can't/won't listen to reason. I already left this article alone, to let the users maintain it. People that KNOW about RunUO should be the ones working on it. It's amazing to me that you sit here and blast me over and over again about how I'm immature but I'm not the one spending every waking minute attacking someone on Wikipedia. I let this go a long, long time ago. You however are stifling the ability of Wikipedia to get information. Just give it up Jestix and let people use the site and update this article. As for banning you from the site... it was completely justified you broke numerous rules. --RyanMcAdams 14:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read to the end of the talk page before attacking again, your shooting your munition into the void soldier! The anonymous convinced me already to let the article go. To clarify this thread I originally meant "to grow" not in the sense of "to grow up", but "to grow" in the sense soul, in general understanding of society, sense of life and that stuff, like for example to learn tolerance, to tolerate e.g. other opinions. we both acted uncivil look in the thread above "Factual Accuracy (use of the term emulator)", at post 4 in total (Well I find it interesting that you...), we both left the field of reasoning about server emulator and just attacked each other, I for one will act no longer that way. As banning from the site, you did not find it worth to tell which rules. You do not ask people to behave, you dont *ask* them to leave like we expect from a kind host at his party. you just "virtually shoot them in their head" if you don't want to see them anymore, or just want to silence them because of their opinion, even with a snappish snotnosed comment. In civilised countries we generally wont tolerate if a host behaves this way even if its his house the party is going on. Thats why wikiepdia is so great, you have to reason, something that if done okay works! Try resolving conflicts without trying to destruct the opposing party! But I do understand that you can't revoke this here and now without loosing your face, just try in future ;-) Over and out --Jestix 14:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW: I really like this self-critic comic on wikipedia. Maybe the truth is in the middle between the auto-biographic article from He-Man and the one of Skeletor.

Last edits

• Why did you revert my edits Jestix? I fixed the capitalization of runUO to RunUO to make the article consistant, changed the heading 'The Who of RunUO' to 'Who' to make it less redundant, and cleaned up the names to follow a consistant and clean looking format. It really looks like you are being petty and vindictive here. You really do an excellent job of forcing your opinion on people. Congratulations, you are the king of the RunUO wikipedia entry! I won't waste anymore of my time making it better. 71.114.0.123 13:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Mark

Oops, Sorry this was a mistake! (due to the revertwar startet by MrSparkle) I will redo your edits, is that fine with you? I'm sorry! Please DO improve the article! Jestix 16:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• I added the boxes above. I hope they help. Once again at everbody please use four ~ to sign every post you make, a lot discussers here seem not yet to be used to wikipedia!
• I deleted the server list. Wikipedia is not a place for listings. As I noted in the Text with the same reason UOX3, Sphere, Wolfpack want their shard lists too, and everybody edits everyday shard to and from it. Wikipedia is not a place to host such!
• I changed some wordings in the text. RunUO has from start been a hobby, I agree that unlike e.g. Sphereserver money gain was never a goal of the team.
• I hope you guys agree not to go into an editwar. But it may sound un-wikipedian, if you must, I can and will editwar. Its just to the favor of wikipedia if an admin should pop in.
• I think in this state the article is acceptable. If it should stray away again, and refrain from having any encyclopedian value. I will put it on the deletion list altogehter , and let the wikipedia community decide what to do.
• Once again this artice does not belong to the "RunUO Team", nor should they actually have any "superior" editing status here. In fact as beeing the project-owner they are actually supposed to keep a personal distance from the article. (Or any article that refers to their project) However still be kindly invitited to contribute to the wikipedia project, but within the goals and the spirit of wikipedia, not with the prime interests of their own Project.
  • I know this is not the place to talk this over. But I cant resist. I ask myself, what keeps people driving over years to work for a project, and contribute also a lot of personal money in it. There are several reasons. Some deeply believe in the idealistic "big idea", that may be a free unix system for PCs, a free encyclopedia on the net, and so on. There are some that more or less secretly dream of making big money of the project at last (*cough* e.g. "SphereServer"). And some are there for the feeling of control and power. They just like to be the "supreme upper" in the community. They maintain little "kingdoms" that work in small copy like the ones that dominated europe during the middle age. The one on the top, shares gratefully his power with others (giving the admin rights, channel ops, and so on). However they want something in return and thats faithfulness to their person and their kingdom. The "knights" get their "shires" but only if they defend them against "the others" and are willingly defend the kingdom. Normal "footfolk" who would never want to name that game as such still play with it. They demonstrate their willingness to defend that kingdom in hope to advance in the hierachy. This very talk page I say is a demonstration. Wikipedia opened to be unexploited ground. Ground the kingdom quickly wants to claim. You see in the talk page, about "our page", about "The Team will make a page", and particularly the warning, "do not edit our page", like it would be an attack against the kingdom. Let me say guys, keep your little kingdom, be happy with it. But a line draws on wikipedia, this is not your homeground. This is not part of your sovereign territory, pleace keep that on your servers (homepage, forum and ingame), there you can be the ultimate emperor, nobody here will challange that. And handle with everybody that is willingly enter this terms. Jestix 14:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What does this have anything to do with SphereServer or server politics? This is about an encyclopedia, not server rivalries and fights. Please stick to the topic at hand. --WarAngel 16:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this little battle but have been a long time runuo user. I tried emulator after emulator and found them all cumbersome and unstable. RunUO, as an emulator and a community, should be the standard all other emulators should aspire to, in my opinion. I find the opening statement, "The RunUO has, from the start, been a hobby" to be completely inaccurate based on my experiene following the emulator and running several servers over the years. And there is nothing about how easy RunUO is to use. Which while some may call that an advertisement I call it important information. As a user who searched for an emulator that would actually work as it was advertised, I think it should be told to history that RunUO was/is the most stable and user friendly UO emulator. - Vidi

The matter if something is a hobby or a profession is not a matter of quality. A hobby is something you do in your freetime, for your personal fun, and for no pay. As far I recognized this is what most fits to the way RunUO is handled. The page will write down facts, not testimonial opinions. Every Emu out there will find people who will say, this one is the best because of this and that blablabla Jestix 06:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

A Release candidate is not a release

latest release = 2.0.0 RC1

Please some correct this, a release candidate is just that, a candidate, its not a release yet, or it wouldn't be a candidate. :) Jestix 19:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think you are being kind of childish? Its a release, just let them have it.--MrSparkle17 16:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, but I think people often don't know what they are doing about versioning. A release candidate is not a release by definition (duh like a president candidate is not yet a president, or do you disagree?). Please get your versioning logic and common sense right. I would correct this, but I cant make out on the RunUO homepage what the latest "real" release was. Jestix 07:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is most times that developers always thing a plain number has something "magic". Why dont just scrap the "RC" and call it version 2.0.0 if you suggest that this is the version people should use. A RC should be somehting people should not use but the latest "real" release, except they are feeling risky and want to participate in latest development. Take UOX3 as a bad example, after now I don't now soon 10 (!) years of existence they were ever too stupid to bring out any version 1.0.

I just edited the article, I browsed runuo.com and 2.0 RC1 really seems to be something people are not suposed to use on production. So we just put the wikipedia template right, and call it the "latest preview" Is that fine for you MrSparkle, or will you revert again? Jestix 22:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw: Another information I cannot find from the RunUO homepage (like many other informations that are missing there, or I am just to stupid to see) is when 1.0.0 was released, please fix!

That one page tells me to be "06-16-2006" I doubt that to be true! Jestix 22:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

RunUO Software Link

I deleted the "dead" link to "RunUO Software" again, and will again and again and again, unless you can here logically explain to me what sense it does make. There is no such article. Even if it existed I would be the first that would put it on the "deletion-candidate" list, since only organisations of importance are in wikipedia, so many else bigger than RunUO Software were already deleted. If you want it, then make one for the sake of it. Then we can both let the wikipedia community decide if such thing has a place in wikipedia or not. Unless there is no Article, there is no link. simple as that. And no need to battle Jestix 10:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW: Wikipedia is in my opinion one of the greatest projects out there. Efforts to keep it tidy and good are not childish! Jestix 10:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the whole point was to put links to non-existing articles so that people will write them? Why then would you go through and remove all of those links? It doesn't make any sense sir. Just because you personally don't want there to be a RunUO Software page doesn't mean there shouldn't be. Thank god your bias isn't the last work on Wikipedia or Im sure it would have died long ago. Why don't you leave this page alone instead of trying to exert control over something you obviously dislike? MrSparkle17 14:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And the point of removing links is that people do not write articles that get deleted eitherway. Do you know wikipedia attitude to this? I guess not, since you do don't seem to care about wikipedia except this one article. 15:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

(Moved argument to proper place)

Revert war? I reverted your stupid childish changes, so now we're going to start childish name-calling? MrSparkle17 14:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You revertet without discussion -> rever war. Your opinion to leave the link inside is just as childish at least. "RunUO Software" does at first legally not exist, not as Ltd. not as registered union, club or anything. Its just a free invention. Secondly even that, as I said, and you did not response to. Only organisation of major importance are allowed to have a page in wikipedia... Pages of So many smaller companies, unions, clubs were already deleted. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisement. Before you reenter the link again, with the sole mark of "jestix is childish" (who started name calling?) enter a Mediation Request instead, or if you want I can do it, if we can't settle the disute ourselfs, Then lets the bias Mediation or request of 3rd opinioan be the last work on Wikipedia! I'm all for it! Jestix 15:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW: when speaking of bias: Zippy aks MrSparkl as part of what is considered to be the "RunUO Software" would you if you reflect yourself, honestly think of yourself possibly do be ablte to not have a bias? (I couldn't for example be for the projects I'm part of) Jestix 15:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What would make you think that? I never said I was unbaised, but I do believe that you said that you were. If you're going to go around with a "holier than thou" attitude then you should at least TRY to live up to it.MrSparkle17 21:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

While I will readily admit that I am not a fan of Wikipedia for this exact reason, I do not understand why someone who has nothing to do with this article, nor knows anything about it (admitted by your own words) decides this is "his" domain and continues to rule over it with some sort of iron fist. You should probably re-read the Wikipedia Etiquette section and digest what it says. Some of the basic principals that you are so adamantly defending are being broken repeatedly. You consistently argue principals not facts, you don’t use neutral tones to discuss your issues, you don't want to give praise where its due (especially to the RunUO Team) and you treat this as if it's your own soap box. Wikipedia’s potential as a wonderful internet resource is constantly brought down by people who defend something they know nothing about based upon principals and ideals they have twisted up in their own heads. Granted that’s my opinion.

The fact remains you're not here to assist Wikipedia in creating a great article in regards to RunUO you're here to ensure that the article is as you see fit. Your intentions may be good but the outcome is stifling the information that Wikipedia could be gaining. You like to throw it in the face of the people who are involved in RunUO Software about how we should not participate in this article yet the Wikipedia Etiquette page actually says its fine to do so. They caution you to use a neutral viewpoint and do stress that its difficult to do so but no where does it say that you're prohibited from participating in entries involving you personally. At this juncture in the game your viewpoint is far from neutral and you should do as I have done and take a step back and let the community work on this article. It's not your article, its not my article its the communities article.

One of the biggest things I think you forget is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be used to prove points nor is it to be used as some way to grind an axe you might have with someone or a group. The Wikipedia guidelines specifically state do NOT remove something just to make a point. State your point in the talk page but do NOT make changes just to make a point. You've now reached the "Taking it too seriously" point of the Avoiding Common Mistakes section. My suggestion to you Jestix is to allow the people who want to participate here to participate. Whatever your issue is with RunUO that keeps you coming back to this site is obviously not allowing you to take an unbiased approach and is dramatically affecting the legitimacy of this article.

I remind you that there's no reason to not allow content into Wikipedia and if someone out there wants to write an article about the RunUO Software Team they should be full permitted to do so. Based on Wikipedia’s own guidelines it should be allowed. You threatening to mark it for deletion immediately is outlandish and is a violation of the Wikipedia rules. You're gaming the system per Wikipedia terms and frankly I hope that you realize this attitude is doing more harm to Wikipedia than good. I encourage you to support Wikipedia not only by following its rules but by supporting the dissemination of human knowledge on all topics to all persons whom wish to read it. --RyanMcAdams 20:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

First this very page was an absolute mess 6 months ago when I noticed it. Shall I quote some things on the page that times? Maybe you did take it up from the wrong side, I did not thread to delete it, it was an offer of consens towards zippy. I contributed at AfD quite a while and see what gets deleted and what not. Usually I can tell you from experience a "RunUO Software Team" side would propably get deleted. So since I am not the last word, I offered zippy to write a page, and then let the wikipedia community decide what to do. From my standpoint, first file it as an registered club or union, then you can talk about a page of something that "really" exists. Jestix 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You side stepped the entire point of this talking point. RunUO Software is already a registered organization. Please rebuke my comments above about your lack of respect toward the guidelines in place for Wikipedia. --RyanMcAdams 22:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Then Write about it on your webpage! Please to rebuke to your total lack of respect toward my person. This way there can never any peace. DO you really think with this treatment I could ever say, oh yes he has got a point when look aside him from calling me an idiot, banning my forum account and ip on the runuo.com webpage, disabling anomymous view on contested parts and at top telling lies? 22:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a long time contributor to Wikipedia. I am also a RunUO fan. Though Ryan and I have our problems and I in general don't typically agree with him, he's right here. This behavior from "Jestix" whoever you are at RunUO is amazingly out of hand and needs to be stopped. You're disgracing Wikipedia. As a fellow lover of Wikipedia I ask that you cease this personal vendetta you have against Ryan and RunUO and let RunUO live in peace. These guys have written an amazing Emulator and give it away for free. I don't drink their kool aid and I don't really like some of the guys that wrote it but the resepct they deserve goes without question. Thank you for listening. --72.49.237.173 05:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought the hidden excuse in my lines above was already visible. I offered many peace treaties now, however did not get response. If you want make the RunUO Software link again, if you think it does any good. THe whole war about it just god a bad start if you ask me. Add one point I just deleted it with an explanation since I thought there will never be a side, and got reverted with "Jestix is childish". And so things went on. However who could write something about it? And what could be written? I just hope that this whole issue demonstrates one thing, that disputes cannot always be settled with "destruction" of the opposing party. Yes and your forum as admin, you go in, bann the opposing party, state the last word (without reasoning). And finished, like in a war where your goal is to kill the other. However like here a sense has to be talked out, dont say I'm am and was not able for hindsight at some points. Jestix 05:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, okay, 72.49.237.173 (whoever it is i guess i know him :o) has convinced me, I think what I have done in total was not bad, when thinking about the state of this article half a year back, when the article suddendly became a biased overly embellish self-portrayal, an evenly biased anti-embellish-view was needed at that time. But things have already changed at the article for the better dramatically! This is my last post on this article or its talk page. With that I will not make any more changes on this article or its talk page! (Someone please at some point clean up the talk page and move it to archives.) And even if I do this insight just to demonstrate that conflict resolution if done properly (like now from 72.49.237.173) can also be "violation free" (other than RyanMcAdams practices, or zippies repeated run downs calling me "childish"). The requirement for this to solve all disputes by talk and sense is one of the things that makes wikipedia so great in my eyes and service to humanity, even if people think just because of this it "blows" because it sometimes makes things more complicated in comparasion to the brute-force-admin-by-my-opinion approach. I for one am able to learn :-) The article is free! Jestix 06:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy (use of the term emulator)

RunUO is not an emulator. References to this should be stripped. Source: http://www.runuo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70528#10

The dispute is only from one person doing it over and over. Kethinov please stop freaking out! Jestix 21:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with this. RunUO is not an emulator. It is basically an MMORPG engine. There have been other groups how have applied different "game layers" to it while keeping the RunUO core. This would classify it as server software or game server software. --RyanMcAdams 20:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then RunUO is a general purpose server core, with an UO-Server emulator layer upon it. ;-) I have to add that my comment toward Kethinov (aka xlinux) was more about him adding the "disputed" sign to a dozend wikipedia pages with the term "server emulator" in them then to RunUO in special. However you want to call RunUO the term Server emulator got now a page on wikipedia, already tested by the wikipedia community (Kethinov/xlinux filled a request for deletion only a few hours after I wrote the page... the request got speed-denied. Jestix 20:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I find it very interesting Jestix that your only contributions to Wikipedia revolve around RunUO, UOX and UO Server Emulators... seems like you're biased with an axe to grind from a neutral viewpoint. RunUO despite what you put here is NOT an emulator. --RyanMcAdams 20:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Now the argument is first a personal atack, followed by a simple predication (no rationale). So to defent the personal attack - I dont use my usual nick when doing things around RunUO, UOX and UO Server Emulators. To the rational - Well you dont have problems for example problems participating at [2] with RunUO which dedicates itself to server emulators ;). You can consider RunUO what you want, it's popular functionallity is widely known as "Ultima Online server emulator". Jestix 20:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually theres plenty of behavior from you to back up the statement I've made. You continue to attack anyone who changes this Wikipedia article, you continue to belittle the RunUO Development Team and you continue to go around editing and changing everything related to what you term "UO Emulation". --RyanMcAdams 20:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No i did not attack *anyone* that changes the article...however I do freely admit that I look twice on edits than come from the RunUo Software team. Dont say I objected anything about the recent history edits. I put the release boxes right. I repaired the .net link (what links just anywhere but not .net in sense of microsofts c#). BTW: You did not answer to my rational about shardwire. And I got RUOSI page deleted on wikipedia, say that you liked it? Jestix 20:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No I didnt like it that you got RUOSI deleted from Wikipedia. It's history about you're beloved "UO Emulation". Just because I didn't agree with their methods doesn't mean it has no place here. As for Shardwire I do not host that site or have any affiliation with that site. I don't doubt Jestix that you've made some changes that were valid, but you're attempt to control all information on Wikipedia regarding "UO Emulation" is ridiculous at best. Let it go and let the real community speak. --RyanMcAdams 21:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Let it go and let the real community speak." Which has yesterday for example just be done on the server emulator AfD-Discussoin ([3]).

So what you're telling me is because like 5 people out of 25 billion said "hey this is right" that makes it right... that's beautiful logic. --RyanMcAdams 21:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes! That was the process, 5 people in 1 day. And thats with the 25 billion is a lame explanation if you request e.g. 10 billion to say anything to be recognized. To start with half of the earth population never used a phone in their life! So think about what problems were are arguing about in relation to that.Jestix 22:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to the topic (wikiepdia talk pages should not be off topic.. so bad me :) Wikipedia wirtes down "human knowledge" - RunUO is widely known as Server emulator even though the RunUo Software team does not see it as that. If you want please edit a note to the article telling this issue, but please do not remove the notice that many still think of it as server emulator. Jestix 21:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe since its a point of contention it should be removed until all parties agree. Just because something is "widely known" as something does not mean it is accurate. --RyanMcAdams 21:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I offered a consensus already, write in the article both views... thats the wikipedian way of NPOV ;-) Jestix 21:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW: You used the word "emulation" yourself already in this article back in february, where the RunUO Team had a rather strong grip on the article. You use the term emulation, and simulatin several times even now on runuo.com ... Jestix 22:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jestix, the very best you're going to get out of this is that the term is colloquially accepted but technically not accurate. That's as much of the pound of flesh you're going to get. I suggest you take it and leave it be. Kethinov 01:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy (use of the term emulator) 2

If you take a look on how the article "server emulator" looks now, you'll see that after 1-2 hour long off-wikipeida discussion there is a consensus about, that the word emulator is not correct in traditional technical sense, and the broading usage of it bears some danger. Yes xlinux managed to convice me :) To say scientifc principle: "do not state but reason":

• emulator has before in all cases always been used to emulate hardware, either hardware by heardware or hardware by software.
• the same logic applied, licq could be called an "icq client emulator", gaim an "aim emulator", samba a "windows file server emulator" and so on. Even I don't like that.

Nevertheless i cant resist to make just a proposal: keep the opening sentence coherent. (I however can resist to hold my vow to not edit the article ever again). When it now reads "RunUO is a project to create and maintain a freely available Microsoft .NET based Ultima Online server. The goal of the RunUO Software Team is to provide software that is scalable and capable of emulating the EA Games servers." You still have the emulator stuff with it. not beautiful! get rid off that. I would however still suggest making another sentence at the end of the opening paragraph, that RunUO is still often refered as an server emulator. This is faculty correct. Take for example runuo on /. [4], but according to the reasons on server emulator the term has its problems, and the maintainers of runuo don't want it to be called that. how about it? Jestix 21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea.... I kind of opened it up a bit Jestix. I'm not going to contribute in a manner that widely changes the article but I dont mind you contributing. You obviously like Wikipedia and want to help here, just try to make things clear and concise and keep personal feelings out of it. --RyanMcAdams 19:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I better be not, wikipedia is big enough to work anywhere else but this 1 article. BTW: I actually never did at any time things that "widly changed" the article, always only small fixes here and there. If you look you'll notice its in principle still the same basic-structure which you left back in february. Jestix 16:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)