Talk:Super Dimension Fortress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have harshly edited the article to attempt to make it sound less like an advertisement, but still retain all of the information. It now sounds no more "commercial" than the Wikipedia article (whose second subject is "How to Donate").

I've deleted the advertisement section. I'm sure that stuff can be found in the links provided. Though there isn't much left of the article now. Perhaps more can be added about its history? Grice 23:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] VfD debate

For the vfd debate related to this article see Talk:Super Dimension Fortress/delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] recent vandalism

The recent activity on this article has caused it to be protected. Ironically, the current read only status is protecting the vandalism. I think this page should be reverted to Peter S's edit on 01:28, 3 March 2006. Gtully 02:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's only protected to anonymous users and newbies, so no real harm done. Or is there something you wanted to add? You said "I think this page should be reverted" - Why? The only difference is the protection disclaimer, which is alright for now, no? Peter S. 11:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a comment on this revert war from someone who knows nothing about this article or its subjects. The remarks on the Jones character are irrelevent to me learning about what this is. The link that is provided to prove that he is a jerk actually shows the opposite: he was in the right. The guy complained about having the same limit as everyone else, and then wouldn't pay for something he committed to by contributing. Cheap shots have no encyclopedic value, and they wouldn't scare me away from the site. Admins may run their sites as they chose; if they have strict rules then they are not open to debate. It isn't a utopian community, neither is wikipedia. There's no democracy here, just consensus. TKE 01:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I wasn't involved in the incident. But I mostly agree with you: somebody registered for free and then his account gets deleted - fine by me. Erase files, delete bulletin board postings- comes with account deletion, fine by me.
I think deleting somebody that paid for "livetime access" is not ok, and defacing webpages is not ok neither, however. But, as long as the rules are clear upfront, there is no problem with a site - you can choose if you want to invest your time or not. And that's why I like this disclaimer: one can learn that this site is great for learning unix etc, but bad for hosting your personal stuff. I actually registered an account after reading the disclaimer, cause I wanted to try it out. And since I knew the rules ("I can get kicked out at any time"), I didn't invest any feelings in it and felt fine. That's my side, anyway.
How about if we remove the name "Stephen Jones", and leave the rest: makes it less "personal" while still preserving the info about the controversy? Peter S. 00:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's not really paying for Lifetime Access. You are making a $36 contribution, and you are granted lifetime access. -slunky
Okay, granted. What about the "defacing webpages" part? Peter S. 01:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, we all know smj did it, but could that be proved in court? Having the name fingering him as the culprit without solid proof is only speculation. I think erasing files and removing accounts is part of system administration, and should be left out, as any web provider does that. The term "defacing" is a little out of context. It wasn't changed to "OWNED BY SMJ KREW" or "F_CK YOU". Something like "Rumors suggest that the administration alters and removes user webspace and postings critical of sdf's administration".
I also think that the article right now (11 March 2006) is splintered. Having the "controversy" in both the top of the article and the history portion is in poor form. Maybe it sould be grouped together or (if needed) subsectioned. -slunky
At risk of inviting the trolling, I'm removing the reference to the man in particular, and put a kind of disclaimer in.TKE 04:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem with doing so is that the end-result is a very one-sided article. People may rely on the information, not knowing that the promises of "lifetime access" are empty if any action is taken which annoys the system administrator (such as criticizing SDF's music collection on a website). In other words, it's letting the vandals who are deleting portions of the article and removing references win. --71.80.228.4
The point is that there's nothing misleading about the promise of lifetime access. It says very clearly in the very top of the SDF acceptable use policy that access may be denied even if the member has paid their dues. It's not Wikipedia's duty to inform people of that disclaimer, at least not in an entire section with a single example. --roint 19:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

10:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The way the information was put in made the article decidedly POV against the site's admins. I like my disclaimer because it is a more balanced warning, I think, making it NPOV will still noting a problem. Bottom line is that with any website, read your Terms of Service and any EULA that comes with software; it probably says that the admin can alter your userspace. If you sign a bad contract, don't blame the guy who wrote it. TKE 17:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Your edit is ridiculous. I fail to see how "strict control over set policies" is equivalent to putting slanderous comments about a user on their own webpage on the site after they complain about quota and the music compendium. Please provide an appropriate cite of those "set policies". --71.80.228.4 13:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I admit it's not the best sentence I've ever written. This is supposed to be encyclopedic, and the way it stood before was not. Jones should not be called out by name because there's no particular reason to. Secondly, the evidence of abuse provided didn't hold up. A user agreed to buy a cd, and then backed down. The same user was complaining about having the same quota as everyone else. It's clear when you sign up that you're going to have limited userspace, and it also says that even if you make a lifetime contribution, your service may be terminated for no reason. It's the power of ownership, it may not be the right way for an admin to behave but it's his perrogative. Besides, the site has been around for almost twenty years so the abuse can't be that rampant. If you can think of a politer way of noting it go ahead; it's just comments like the original are what start goofy edit wars and wikipedia is not the place to provide warnings, otherwise the article on Myanmar would be blank except to say "Don't go there, it's dangerous." TKE 16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
From the article on Myanmar: "The regime is accused of having a questionable human rights record and the human rights situation in the country is a subject of concern for a wide number of international organizations." And many other statements to similar effect. Let me write that Myanmar sentence over, OK? "The Myanmar government exercises strict control over set policies, and debate over the subject should reside within Myanmar." The fact is, there is clear evidence of censorship that anyone can verify (external archives of bboard posts which have now been removed from the bboard archives on SDF), and discussion of the defaced user's page exists on said bboard archives. It's somewhat likely in the near future the defaced page will even appear on archive.org. In conclusion, there is clearly controversy, and the correct policy is not to gloss over it. --71.80.228.4 23:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I was joking about Myanmar, you know, a little levity. Anyway, as you wish. I don't think you should bother to include an example, just because it doesn't need it but I that's just me. Anyway, I don't use the site and so I'll just let you be. TKE 02:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Vandalism" pt 2

First off, don't lable the reversions as "vandalism reverts", because it's not. Secondly, why has no one discussed this in over six weeks? Just leave the section out. Teke 02:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Since no one is respondant, I removed the controversy section for my reasons given above: the Administration of the site was within their legal rights per TOS, moral questions have no place here. Teke 20:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we haven't responded because we're tired of debating... Your argument against is immaterial: Wikipedia is prefectly within its legal rights etc. and yet we have Criticism of Wikipedia. --maru (talk) contribs 22:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
What? My argument is very material. The inclusion is unencyclopedic and POV. The argument for keeping it is the one that doesn't hold water. There is no evidence of rampant abuse and unhappy customers; just a couple disgruntled exmembers. All argument for inclusion above is faulty by POV. Wikipedia is not for soapboxing. As for Wikipedia and Criticism of Wikipedia in relation to SDF, that's apples to oranges rhetoric and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Teke 23:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You were arguing before that the section should be removed because it was attracting edit wars, which is not a good reasons. And I think actual cases of abuse should be mentioned. And I have no idea what "All argument for inclusion above is faulty by POV" means. Well-written and specific criticisms are not POV; that's sort of what I was pointing out with the mention of Criticism of Wikipedia (which also relates to my first point). --maru (talk) contribs 00:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I think we've just misunderstood each other. I was okay with leaving in a disclaimer, as I wrote a poor one in this edit. To me the controversy section as is written is POV in overvaluing the abuse of the smj character, making it seem more of a warning than an encyclopedic tidbit. Know what I mean? Teke 00:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I took out the specifics of stonefly and Stephen Jones, this should work for all with just the first section of the controversy. Teke 01:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That's better. Too bad we can't find any links for this, though. --maru (talk) contribs 02:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
There we go, all set. Teke 03:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I actually think it's worse/more of a vague unspecific warning without the specific instance that we know about being mentioned. I think some copyediting could help, it seems wordy with my new revision, but the specific instance keeps things nicely in context. Note that I'm personally aware of many more cases, but this is one of only a couple where I have bboard snippets. (Note that neither this bboard snippet nor the other one, cited in earlier versions of the article and removed by sdf.lonestar.org, appear in bboard's history on SDF; the evidence has been rubbed out). --71.80.228.4 07:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned it up to the only complaints verifiable; that accounts are deleted and so are BBS posts, which is why no further verfication is possible. I've left a note for the 192 IP about discussion; hopefully as is now can be put to bed and end this three month fiasco. Teke 20:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The recent edit by 71.80.228.4 is fine by me. I also encourage the user to register an account. And so, for now, farewell (hopefully). Teke 21:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you for your help. You really hit on a good wording that (I hope) everyone can live with. --71.80.228.4 00:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent editwar

Thank you for semi-protecting this page to squash the editwar.

I just have one comment-- can someone with an account please revert to the version of 21:05, 18 May 2006? During the editwar we seem to have erroneously reverted to an earlier version. The specified version fixes a spelling error and hopefully makes the section less controversial. Thanks! --71.80.228.4 04:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Now get yerself an account :P Teke 04:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)