Talk:Online creation/Archive 4

message: Hi.
I'm currently investigating whether this article conforms with Wikipedia's content policies.  In particular, what I am questioning is whether the term "online creation" is a recognized concept deserving of an encyclopedic article exists.
To clarify, it's clear that there are MUDs and programs that allow what is described herein as "online creation."  What's not clear is that any reliable source has used that term.  My worry is that describing the term as a concept unto itself, in the way this article does, violates Wikipedia's core content policy on no original research.
It may simply be that I'm unfamiliar with the literature in this area.  If so, then the problem is merely that this article doesn't cite its sources.  If one of the editors familiar with the article could discuss those sources here, that would be great.  Otherwise, I plan on nominating this article for deletion, since it seems that most of the material in it would be better covered in other articles (such as those on MUDs). 
Regards, Nandesuka 13:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term 'online creation' is used all over. It's more commonly referred to by the acronym 'OLC', though. Google for +MUD +OLC and you should find a whole raft of stuff. I've never been sure that the concept really deserves an article all to itself, though. A mention in MUD and in the articles on codebases that are particularly known for this (such as TinyMUD) would be sufficient IMO. Ehheh 13:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Super.  That's a relief.  Could I trouble you to perhaps find what you'd consider to be the best (meaning "from the most reliable source") citation, for use in the article lead?  That would assuage my concerns. Nandesuka 14:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Most of the definitions of the term are just from various internet documents. Self published guides, FAQs, etc. The best source for a mention of the term, though, would be Raph Koster here, or this, from the Journal of Virtual Environments out of Brandeis. Ehheh 14:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know that isn't a reliable source.  There are numerous other publications, try the 'papers' section at  Research archive or  Denambren 16:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt you're going to get consensus that Herb's personal site constitutes a reliable source. Ehheh 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This article survived the process in Feb '04 back when it was just a NiMUD ad  that backdated its release date by 2 years (created by Herb as a supporting article for NiMUD which itself had the same problem).  Here is the discussion page before it finished (tied 2:2, with nomination plus 1 vote to delete, and Herb plus 1 vote to keep oops, it looked like it was tied 2:2 to the unwitting admin who didn't watch for problem users back then... but actually was 2:1 in favor of Delete, with Herb being the sole Keep).  Later in Feb '06 it was nominated again here, where again it's tied, with some sock puppets this time.  On both of them, discussion included Herb, and outsiders assumed that the whole problem was based on Herb rather than it just being a pointless article to begin with.  Thus most of the keep votes were an attempt to take a stand against ad hominem stuff, and likely didn't even look at the article itself.  I support deletion, and suggest that if you write a nomination, just describe the article, as it's really worthy of existing on its own.  Internet and single player games that include worlds/rooms/areas/some concept of space/realms/domains/etc in them have often had the ability to edit the data without having to restart or recompile the game; it's nothing quite as revolutionary or even noteworthy as what is described here and elsewhere.  --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 23:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is Herb? Denambren 16:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Herb is a problem user that is trying to get indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia.  For over two years, he has edited things via a multitude of sock puppets, even during his temporary bans.  Currently, there is a temporary ban applicable to him today, and violating it via a sock puppet is grounds for extending his ban indefinitely.  Anyway, he reveals his identities by doing things like refer to his own personal web site as a reliable source, and endlessly asking which of his identities have been revealed so far at every mention of his name.  --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 17:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you're asking about the link in my above message to the votes, Ebube_dike is Herb; that identity is the one that deleted AfD discussion  about his own article, and then later in a later edit  deleted someone's Keep vote for his enemy's article (he dislikes the author of the mud trees article, because he wrote something similar to "OLC" on his own, thus Herb wanting to delete articles he contributes to), and put words into the mouth of Zanimum, a random person with a good reputation who didn't actually vote (oops, the first AfD was 2:1... 2 delete vs Herb's 1 keep plus Herb's fake 2nd keep, I wouldn't have noticed that myself except that you asked who Herb is). --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 17:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Denambren, don't worry about Herb.  He's not anyone important. Nandesuka 22:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, with relevance to the article and from what I've read on , it seems Herb is a co-writer of a widely derived, advanced OLC which seems to be the first thing officially called "OLC" -- from what I can tell, it was around the emergence of the term (based on the other OLCs being released in late 1993).  It's sad that one of the authors died. Denambren 19:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In reality, Herb was co-writer of The Isles/NiMUD.  He was not involved with the first thing called "OLC", and NiMUD did not predate anything that was released in 1993, as shown in the talk archives at the top of this page, since it was released in mid-1994. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 23:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online Creation: Original Research? 

message: I condensed the Hidden Worlds and NiMUD sections together and rewrote the section.  I expanded the WHAT of the Armageddon OLC by summarizing the earlier command list, in the same way I did the Monster entry.  I changed the dating to be more generalized.  Note that this is not a traumatic excising of important and NOTABLE information.  It is a small step at a rewrite.  I encourage others to improve the article, and not engage in mass deletion.  Jlambert 00:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Goodness.  This article appears to lurch from concise to wreckage with very little in between.  The state of the article as I write this is woeful: long, unstructured, full of doubtful links.  While I support the consensus concise version, I'm sympathetic to the desire for some level of detail.  I'm going to revert to a shorter version, and ask that we add information slowly and in a manner that avoids the slow-burn edit warring that I am seeing. - brenneman {L} 04:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Specifically, in the 3 or 4 paragraphs about TheIsles, we learn who wrote it, when it was written, and that lots of MUDs are allegedly "derived" from it.  All of that is beside the point (to me).  The key question, which is unanswered, is "What does it do that previous OLCs did not?"  Can someone answer that, preferably with a citation to a reliable source?  Nandesuka 20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I added a small section of that summarized information as per Brenneman's request and Nandesuka immediately deleted it.  The user apparently will not allow ANY information whatsoever on DikUMUD OLCs into the article.  He is also claiming some sort of genealogical relationship.  Jlambert 20:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Btw Mr. Brenneman - I've asked Nadesuka to explain this edit   .  I believe it explains the extraordinarily high burden of proof for adding DikUMUD information.  The user has a author of OLgrudge against an particular C code.  I'm asking him to stand down if he can't edit the article without this sort of blatant personal bias, which is just as offensive as the author who has been vandalizing this page. Jlambert 21:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sweet bippy, please let f('Mr. B') → 'b'.  I'd also suggest that comparing to vandalism an editor's behavior in a content dispute is neither socially acceptable nor a succesful rhetorical approach.  That aside, currently I'm struggling.  Not only because I am not familiar with the material. (Despite having played AberMUD in monocrome green.)  But because I am having a hard time determining what constitute's a "reliable source" here.  <GOTO 1000> brenneman {L} 01:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you care to explain why an editor would suddenly appear, edit a page and remove the authors of a single piece of software out of dozens listed on the page?  Furthermore delete all such information and sit on the article delete and block the DikuMUD OLC information from being entered on the page?  Care to comment on my comment that The Mud Connector listing is a reliable primary source and catalog of muds running today?  Do you dispute that there are more DikuMUDS running today than all other muds combined?  Second maybe AberMUD means something to you, but since AberMUD does not have anything whatsoever to do with online creation and suddenly appears on this page, perhaps someone, anyone, can tell me why all the prior subject matter experts who have been editing this page completely failed to mention AberMUD on this page?  Jlambert 04:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because they weren't interested in accuracy? Nandesuka 11:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * There were too many issues in that edit for me to respond to meaningfully.  I've got no stance on AberMUD, I mentioned in to demonstrate that I have at best passing familarity with this subject.  I have more that a passign familarity with the guidelines of reliable sources, and am happy to talk about that. <GOTO 1000> brenneman {L} 05:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring 

message: Title says it all.  If you have any reliable sources discussing online creation enabled games that are not based on "MUD" (or MUD-derived) code, please list them in this section.  Thanks. Nandesuka 11:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next phase: non-MUD OLC's 

message: There is no geneological linkage between DikuMUD and Monster or TinyMUD.  See Keegan.  I've removed the implied assertion that there is.  See the Keegan references.  Read Wikepedia original research article, especial the section on promoting personal theories and crank theories.  Of course if you can support your geneological theories then explain here and cite references here.  Until such time as you can I ask you not remove the DikuMUD OLC information.  Jlambert 20:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keegan says that both Tiny and Diku were influenced ('Grafted,' in his terminology) by AberMUD. Ehheh 20:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct. However the article suggests that all OLCs are descendents of Monster.  Clearly not. They were developed independently. AberMUD had no OLC.  DikuMud is not a TinyMUD descendent. Jlambert 20:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TinyMUD's author acknowledges that he was borrowing ideas from Monster. Locke has said several times that NiMUD's OLC was borrowing ideas from PennMUSH. That seems like a chain of descent to me. Ehheh 20:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's nothing in the original release documentation suggesting that.  I asked him here to clarify what he meant by the reference.  He said later versions got features from PennMush.  I would assume he is talking about NIM scripts.  I can't find where he has said it anywhere else but here, which is part of the problem.  Reliability.  I find the comments made at the time of the release much more reliable than the stories told today.  Jlambert 22:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the clarification.  Jlambert 05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No original research 

message: : Relevent guideline
1000 I'd like some discussion on if (for example) the ludd.luth.se citation qualifies as reliable sources. brenneman {L} 01:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bartle is a recognized expert in his field, but I'd be willing to bet that all the same points are covered in one of his books (such as "Designing Virtual Worlds").  If we can replace the web URL with cites to the book, that would be a good start. Nandesuka 02:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The web page source is two separate posts to RGMD one by Bartle and the other by Kimberly M. Antell.  Bartle's post solely discusses his M.U.D. and nothing germain to this article.  Jlambert 20:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur. Jlambert 12:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: I've commented out one reference.  It did not adress the material of the article as I understand it. brenneman {L} 09:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Jlambert 12:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commented out source 

message: (comment from banned editor deleted)
: I agree.  Jlambert 05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The phrase "descendants and imitators" is taken from one of the sources cited.   Hope that helps. Nandesuka 13:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you be more specific?  Jlambert 14:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello? Jlambert 03:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cannot find "descendents and imitators" in Keegan as you cited in your edit revert. Since I can't revert the nonsense headings as I'm at 3RR.  I also can't find any support whatsoever for "popularity spreads" either.  This appears to be an unsourced opinion. Jlambert 03:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed it in a way that I think makes it imply less than it previously did regarding things being based on or inspired by each other (see some of my earlier comments along the same lines).  Please discuss it here if there is any disagreement regarding this. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 14:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section title "Descendants and Imitators" 

message: Online creation does not only exist in the text-based MUD context.  For example, A Tale in the Desert is a massively-multiplayer online role-playing game, Retrieved 8 October 2006. From within the game's client, players can engage in certain limited forms of creation (such as the development of fireworks, sculptures, or games for other players to play). Retrieved 8 October 2006.  Similarly, Second Life is a 3-D virtual world which provides its users with tools to modify the game world and participate in an economy, trading user content created via online creation for virtual currency.Andrew Lavalee  Now, Virtual Fashion Second Life Designers Make Real Money Creating Clothes For Simulation Game's Players, The Wall Street Journal, September 22, 2006</blockquote>
If some other editor thinks that this would be a good addition to the article, please be my guest and add it.  Nandesuka
:Seems good to me! I added it. Ehheh 02:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Post Text-based MUD

message: It's not based on it, it's written for it.  It was incorporated into its successor package, Envy. Get it right.  Fascisti 02:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've made a mistake.  I apologise without prevarication, I confused User:Jlambert and User:Jaiwills.  That conflation combined with the very small three minute window between the block and the first edits by this account led me to block in haste.  I shall log off and meditate on the error of my ways. - brenneman {L} 02:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe both Nandesuka and yourself should be less quick on the draw, specially the fascist hair trigger censoring on the talk page.  He reverted comments I added to this talk page.  Fair warning.  I'm going to cast summon subject matter experts on this article.  So you should consider unprotecting it.  Jlambert 03:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest you make sure that your subject matter expects have the "Cite reliable sources" spell memorized, because otherwise other editors are likely to cast "Dispel Original Research." Nandesuka 04:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Isles OLC is not based on Merc 

message: Why bother?  I found out about this page from mudbytes.net and got blocked immediately.  70.5.70.90 11:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You aren't blocked, or you wouldn't be able to post on the talk page. The article is protected against edits by very new users, because there have been some problems with one ill-behaved user using multiple accounts to evade blocks. Ehheh 14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Freedom of speech. 70.5.8.18 03:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Everyone is welcome to participate here except Herb, who gave up his privileges by committing egregious and long-running fraud.  If you're not Herb, welcome.  If you're from mudbytes.net, I'm sure you understand this -- he was apparently blocked from there for unacceptable and shameful behavior, as well.  Nandesuka 12:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I'm not really sure what "shameful behavior" is, other than to say that from our standpoint on mudbytes, Samson was a bit overbearing when it came to his scrutiny of Locke's emails.   As for "long-running fraud" I am not exactly certain what you mean, but you are certainly a person who is quick to judge other people and not very understanding of the way Wikipedia works. 70.5.8.18 01:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Locke's long-running fraud is quite well documented, and quite outrageous.  We let him get away with it for over six months, mostly, I suspect, because no one realized just to what lengths he was willing to lower himself.  Judging him after six months of deception and fraud is not exactly "quick".  In any event, it's over now, since both his methods and his goals are transparent. Nandesuka 02:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why bother? 

message: Does anyone here other than Nandesuka seriously dispute this statement in the article, "The Isles OLC[11] was released in 1994[12] and its descendents are widely used [13] on Merc derived MUDs today."?  Do note that in his arguments above he is arguing against a straw man statements that simply do not appear in the article.  Specifically what is in error in the statement above that appears in the article? Jlambert 03:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The objection I am making is that the cited source at mudconnect does not make the assertion that it is cited as supporting. Nandesuka 04:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How about something like 'OLC derived from TheIsles comes preinstalled on MUDS running the Merc and ROM codebases?' Or something like that. We can just avoid the troublesome 'widely used' wording, which I agree isn't supported by a link to mudconnector. Ehheh 04:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would not suggest that it is preinstalled because that would not be true as there are a number of Merc derives where it is preinstalled and a number where it is a patch.  However why is "widely used on Merc derived muds"  even objectional or controversial?  Jlambert 05:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You are very thoroughly proving my point. Nandesuka 12:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that the GodWars codebase does not have any form of OLC, although many of its derivatives do, including GodWars Deluxe (which I believe uses EnvyOLC, derived from TheIsles OLC). KaVir 10:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it is indeed a simple tabulation.  The complete listing rather than the main page can be obtained here .  You can use fingers to count if you'd like.  I include the whole posting as it is, which just happens to have multiple buckets and includes past history. Jlambert 04:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought the statement was non-controversial without the citation.  Jlambert 04:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll suggest a compromise:  replace the word "widely," which is a value judgment, with the word "still," which is a simple verifiable fact.  Do that, and there is no original research issue.  How dos that sound? Nandesuka 12:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you were actually arguing the value judgement by providing alternative Merc OLC systems there'd actually be a sound reason for compromise.  Few, some, many, most, widely have common sense meanings and are not in general in any way harmful nor even contentious as would be first, last, notable, nonnotable, best, worst and others.  No I see no reason to compromise unless the poster        has an argument that the observation "widely used" is blatantly fallacious or harmful to the article.  Jlambert 18:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no source for the claim that something is "widely used", and it is challenged, then you must provide a proper citation, per WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement on TheIsles OLC 

message: Once again Nandesuka has removed the attributions to the Armageddon OLC and Diku OLC for probabaly the 6th or 7th time.  I've lost count.  He disguised the edit when reverted the the original request for citations.  These are exact tactics used by Locke used by labeling an edit as something else while reverting his software dates.    Jlambert 05:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe I am acting in bad faith, I absolutely encourage you to file a user conduct RfC.  I personally would characterize this as a straightforward content dispute. Nandesuka 12:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your continual removal and attempt at hiding said removal of specific references on the page that properly attribute the author, title, and publication date of specifc works (and no other), in accordance with with standard academic practices and Wikipedia policy, is in fact tendentious. Clearly an agenda.  It's frankly remarkable to me that not one of the reviewers (or friends of your Talk Page) that you summoned to this page has dared to comment on this abomination.  Jlambert 21:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  At what point does one assume bad faith? 

message: I don't see the point in removing mention of SMAUG's online building while retaining specific information to TheIsle OLC when a good deal of MUDs use SMAUG OLC.  --Thoric 18:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The impetus of the recent changes has been to focus the article more on the "What" of OLC rather than the "Who."  Can you write something describing the unique features of Smaug OLC, and hopefully point to a reliable source where those are discussed?  Thanks.  Nandesuka 18:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article did contain such information about SMAUG OLC, and the talk archive pages went over it in quite a bit of detail.  SMAUG's OLC was somewhat unique in that it brought some of what was previously limited to MUSHes and MOOs to MUDs (specifically the DikuMUDs), and that would be the ability to online edit factors far beyond rooms, objects and mobiles -- to include spells, skills, shops, scripts, class and race attributes as well as system wide parameters and settings.  As for a reliable source, how about www.smaug.org? --Thoric 06:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the removal of the SMAUG online building system? 

message: We want to know why you have removed ILAB/OLC systematically from all pages.  According to statistics garnered from MudConnect.com, the world's largest active MUD list resource, it is currently a popular variety of software ported from NiMUD, which is in use by over 1000 online games in a derived format.  Administrator "Nandesuka" has been systematically removing all references to ILAB/OLC, NiMUD and its authors, on all pages associated with this article, despite sufficient evidence to the contrary.  Amy Barr 14:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the information on DIKUMUD OLC systems that Nandesuka has gratuitously deleted with no consensus.  Jlambert 14:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The account User:Amy Barr was created a mere 4 minutes before posting the above.  The above is the user's only edit.  Someone should probably run a checkuser request.  If it's Mr. Lambert in disguise, I'm going to be extremely irritated. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excuse me but I do not and never have played sock puppet games.  Nor has anyone besides the vandal Locke/eggster/YoungZaphod ever alleged it.  Furthermore what need do I have to create another account when I can and have been editing the article with reasonable edits. Jlambert 14:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My sincere apologies for making an erroneous assumption.  Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it'd be worthwhile to do a checkuser request, as that just bothers people who could be doing more worthwhile things (like researching a username who has made more than 1 edit to 1 talk page).  I guess this should reset Herb's block timer though.  --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification: This would be Herb Elwood Gilliland III and not Jlambert, Gilliland often puts in references to NiMUD and ILAB/OLC which is related to NiMUD... Jlambert has been known to go to great lengths to see that there's a consensus for stuff and is basically the opposite of what Gilliland does.  I had originally misread Extreme Unction's comment and thought he put Gilliland since most of the other editors are familiar with his history. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 18:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  See User:Nandesuka/Young Zaphod Sockpuppetry for more detail, Extreme Unction.  Nandesuka 14:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those claims have been confirmed.  The Isles NiMUD OLC (and its port to Merc, ILAB/OLC) has a place as the first multimodal OLC, predecessor to the multimodal interface of Sauerbraten_(game) 68.246.139.184 02:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You accidentally put a period after "confirmed" instead of a colon.  --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 16:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually two separate thoughts, separated by a period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.5.120.85 (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That actually makes more sense if it's all one thought, since The Isles NiMUD OLC was not the first multimodal OLC, and it is not a predecessor to Sauerbraten, and it is not a predecessor of Sauerbraten's predecessor Cube.  Just read it this way... "None of these claims have been confirmed: The Isles NiMUD OLC has a place as the first multimodal OLC, predecessor to the multimodal interface of Sauerbraten." Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 21:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "respective pages" claim