Talk:Derek Smart - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mael-Num (talk | contribs) at 15:17, 5 December 2006 (→More format changes: Weighing in on consensus.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:17, 5 December 2006 by Mael-Num (talk | contribs) (→More format changes: Weighing in on consensus.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Biography Unassessed

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-11-21. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Archives

Archive 1: May 2005-June 2006

Archive 2: June 2006-August 2006

Archive 3: More August 2006

Archive 4: August 2006-November 2006

Pruning External links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"With prejudice"

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

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

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

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

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

Desktop Commander video

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

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

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

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

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

POV Pushing

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

WP:SOCK states "Dealing with violations

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

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

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

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

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

New Improved Werewolves' Site

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

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

Please see the warning that I placed on your User_talk:Supreme_Cmdr#Continued_Violations_of_NPA. I have said this multiple times after you made false statements that I had editted the Derek Smart article. I really don't care about the contents of the Derek Smart article. I took out that portion of the Werewolves site to make the site more palatable and to make you happy since that was the part that seemed to bother you the most. The Werewolves site is NOT libelous. Please discontinue your personal attacks against me by saying that it is libelous. Here's a paragraph that I added to the Werewolves site.

Mr. Smart is very fond of telling lies especially about me and this website. Some favorite lies that he tells people is that he has previously had this site taken down for libel. This is a lie. Another favorite lie is that I have fabricated lies about him and maliciously modified Usenet postings that are here in the archives. These too are lies. If you ask Mr. Smart to provide evidence to substantiate his false accusations he'll probably tell you it's obvious or say everyone knows this, or he'll provide you so much information he knows that you will never read it all. What I used to do on-line was to say that if anyone can find one Usenet post here that I've maliciously edited or one lie here that I've told then I will happily remove this whole website and never put it up again. My offer still stands.

Mr. Smart used to say that the truth was not a complete defense to libel. I still say that it is. My offer stands, so show a malicious edit or lie I told on the Werewolves site and I'll happily apologize and take the whole site down. If you can't then your unsupported assertions that the site is libelous is nothing more than a personal attack. Regards, Bill Huffman 02:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Ugh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More format changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rewrite

I'm starting a rewrite of the article. If anyone wants to participate or offer feedback, please help me out here Talk:Derek_Smart/rewrite. Tear it apart, tell me I'm wrong, change it up. have fun. Thanks --Jeff 12:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories: