Talk:Online creation/Archive 3

message: Somehow TinyMUD went from "reminiscent of" to "inspired by" BASH.  As pointed out earlier by Jlambert, it's not even the first one, let alone the second.  I'm removing that since it's incorrect.  Regarding the NiMUD section, it currently has emphasis on times when less relevant things happened and excludes those of more relevant things.  For example, it currently says that it was the first publicly available one (without specifying that this is only among Diku derivatives; guess I'll change that right now too while I'm at it), and started in 1993.  It excludes the time when it actually became publicly available.  The way I word it seems to offend Locke since he keeps deleting it.  I think that if it's significant that it was the first one available (among dikus), then it would make sense to also say when it actually was.  Him and his friend writing it in 1993 is of no significance to the general public since the general public could not actually put it to any use until he decided to give it out.  NiMUD's OLC was definitely not publicly available in 1993 unless he got a really quick response to his usenet post  at 1pm on Dec 31, 1993 where he said he'd give it out to somebody if they gave him free hosting.  The earliest evidence of him giving it out to the public was in his other post on July 29, 1994 when he was wanting help to fix its bugs .  So, there was quite some time between the start of the project and when people could use it (even the buggy one).  So, I would suggest someone else reword it to either mention when it became available (which seems to be July 29, 1994), or else just take emphasis off of the wrong parts.  If nobody wants to do that, I'll deal with it later I guess myself. --157.89.68.238 19:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is me, this computer's being weird and logged me out I guess. --Atari2600tim 19:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot to mention that the Dec 31st posting was quite clear on indicating that the code would only be given to one or two people, and was conditional on them not giving a copy to anyone else.  This certainly does not count as a public release.  Also of interest is the mention (in the same thread) that EmpireMUD contained online building code, and had been leaked to an ftp site. --Thoric 20:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Monster was developed on VMS.  TinyMUD was developed on BSD Unix and very heavily inspired by Monster.  BSD Unix used the A-SHell or ASH not the Bourne Shell.  Regardless the Bourne shell commentary would be incorrect since neither link, unlink, chown have anything whatsoever to do with what shell you are running.  They happen to be Unix commands, not shell builtins.  I would be hard pressed to make the case that Monster Link/Unlink are inspired by VMS commands, since LINK is the command to invoke the linkage editor (ld on Unix) and there is no Unlink.  TinyMud's chown is clearly inspired by the Unix command.  I really don't understand the significance of pointing out the obvious origins of a single TinyMUD command.  As to the origination of the rest of the commands, it would be sheer speculation.  Jlambert 20:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tim's edits on Feb 9 '06 

message: I went through the history and put unsigned tags for some of the more recent unsigned stuff, so this should be at least a tiny bit more readable.  I noticed that a lot of things were censored or changed to imply something other than what was intended.  If you change someone else's quotes without even a ... in there, then you might be changing the meaning of the statement, so always re-read the original and new version before making changes, or else just avoid changing it.  For example, in one edit  141.158.97.121 made it look like I was saying that SMAUG's "online building" was nothing revolutionary, while really I was saying that neither it nor Locke's "online creation" are anything revolutionary.  Also most of Eggster's messages refer to Locke in third person, so some edits in particular and especially hard to read through (I didn't change any of those though; just commenting that it's hard to read when people do that).  Also, I didn't notice how much stuff that I personally wrote that sounded offensive or whatever.  I noticed that "I skimmed the help files when I first got wizzed on NiMUD, but haven't been interested enough to create stuff on there (then didn't log in for a long time, so probably got inactive-purged by now)." which I added  was deleted  presumably because it's offensive for me to say that his MUD didn't interest me :P  Many of the changed quotes have notes saying that they were changed, so I left some changed even though it was someone else changing it.  Some other stuff I noticed got deleted for relevance, and I think most of them were legitly irrelevant, however, I did restore a couple.  --Atari2600tim 02:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also creating an archive page and moving some stuff to it which I think has been resolved and not discussed in at least a few months (as far as I can tell, half the stuff isn't signed correctly... so I'm guessing at ages of some of these comments rather than going through the history again.  I tried to keep anything that's been added to more recently than September).  As the note on top of it says, please do not touch the archive page; create a second archive page some time in the future when there's a lot of resolved things built up again. --Atari2600tim 03:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:REFACTOR|refactoring]] talk page 

message: Removed the direct quotes of the docs, citing Wiki's article length policy .  Kept references where they were supplied via the web; users can visit the repositories themselves to download and examine each MU*'s features. 68.162.148.34 16:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are concerned about sockpuppet activity, you're welcome to file a CheckUser request. Ehheh 17:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he doesn't do a CheckUser request then I'm going to myself later. --Atari2600tim 19:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: jlambert aka Jon Lambert aka Tyche, a co-moderator of Tiny server repository on MudMagic.  One can verify by PM profile page.  No sockpuppets.  Nothing to hide. Jlambert 19:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Length 

message: Added new information on Armageddon's OLC and sourced it.  Jlambert 22:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw your three prior non-starter arguments.  If you have a problem with me citing Armegeddon OLC as the first publicly available OLC for Dikumuds then you need to provide an earlier citation. Jlambert 05:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  armegeddon olc 

message: This was already disputed; talk to Atari2600tim about that.  We decided Online Creation, Online building refer to the same "live customization" features of these games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.148.34 (talk • contribs) 
:Ok, great. But if it's the same thing, why do you keep changing it away from online creation in the Monster section? Ehheh 04:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between online building and online creation (for ehheh) 

message: * Opening paragraph
-Referred to by the acronym "OLC" or "OC", this was a significant improvement for Dikumud variants, because they typically require a restart in order to implement any changes.  
+Referred to by the acronym "OLC" or "OC", this was a significant improvement for Dikumud variants, because older MUD-like games require a restart to implement any changes to the map or objects database.
The original sentence referred only to Diku and was changed from "they" (Diku) to "older MUD-like games" (??) with the added "(require a restart to implement any changes) to the map or objects database".  Ambiguity was introduced.  Retained "they" because those who don't do OLC aren't the subject of this page.
* Monster section
You have repeatedly changed the text, online creation to online building, online customization, and live customization.  Changed back as your claim to "coining" the term has been proven false by multiple citations of prior use.  
* Armageddon OLC section 
-The first publicly available on-line creation software for Dikumud...
+A privately distributed online building add-on for Dikumud...
Sorry multiple citations listed call it "on-line creation" (see above comment IRT Monster).  That it was publicly distributed on at least two ftp cites is confirmed by two of the citations.  Retained "add-on" in favor of "software".   You need to update the NiMUD Section to correct the erroneous statement that it was the first publicly available OLC for DikuMuds.   
* NiMUD section
-... Woodward in 1993....
+... Woodward in 1992, though the first public disclosure on Usenet was in 1993.  Development was delayed due to the 1992 release of Wolf3d...
Impossible dates.  It's being disputed on this talk page and you've provided no evidence for any 1992 dates.  You confirmed the earliest May 93 date yourself repeatedly.  Changed back.
-NiMUD OLC was publicly released in various stages of development from 1994 to 2006 by Locke.
+NiMUD OLC was publicly released in various stages of development from 1993 to 2006 by Locke.  Locke alleges earlier versions have been tampered with by MUD Distro site owners.
Date changed back to 1994.  Public distribution announcement has been cited as July 1994.  See Armageddon section for how to provide verifiable information.  
 
* Oasis OLC
... which was an adaptation of similar features present in NiMUD OLC.
Note you are be requested to give a citation for the your speculation.
* Also can you explain how MUME "originates with Shadows of Isuldur" when MUME was around in 1991, years before SOI.  
Jlambert 05:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections - cites requested  

message: Concerning the dating disputes.  I extracted the following from ftp://ftp.ccs.neu.edu/pub/mud/docs/mudlists/  
18 October 1993  Volume 6  Issue 6
CthulhuMUD       zen.btc.uwe.ac.uk       164.11.2.18      4000  up          18
...
17 December 1993  Volume 6  Issue 10
CthulhuMUD       zen.btc.uwe.ac.uk       164.11.2.18      4000  R*          23
*  = last successful connection was more than 7 days ago
...
22 January 1994  Volume 6  Issue 11
CthulhuMUD       zen.btc.uwe.ac.uk       164.11.2.18      4000  R**         21
** = last successful connection was more than 30 days ago
This correlates with the Usenet messages cited , , , , , , .  
I suggest this is pretty damn good evidence that Locke started work CthulhuMud in August 93, it was up by October, and it went down in December 93.  So the earliest dating of OLC code cannot have been prior to August 93.
Also... 
27 August 1993  Volume 5  Issue 10
Hidden Worlds    cns.cscns.com           192.156.196.1    4000  up 
On or about Aug 2nd, 1993 (broken thread) is first message mentioning hidden worlds   in which Russ Taylor replies:
>Hidden Worlds, at 192.156.196.1 4000, is using essentially unmodified vego
>code at the moment.   All characters were nuked, unfortunately. 
Hidden Worlds appears on no earlier mud listing.  If Surreality was a builder on Hidden Worlds and as the Isles documentation (see [Talk:Online_creation#On_the_Dates_Issue_with_Thoric talk above]) insists that is where they took their ideas from, then that's also supporting evidence of August 93 as the earliest possible dating for their OLC.  
It seems like a prima facie issue here IRT verifiability when three different sources all confirm it.  What's the Wikipedia policy for handling a user who stubbornly refuses to follow verifiability and insists on repeatedly inserting wrong information and reverting in pages?  I'd like to think he'd stop but he does not yet appear to be responding to any of the discussion points directly.  
As a matter of record since I've found and included references to other OLCs, the user's page on their NiMUD software has had its dates back-dated to 1991.  It's also fair to point out the user has been continually messing with new entries by including references to his NIMUD or changing the term online creation to something else because he's apparently claimed coinage of the term, but see these searches from 1992 and earlier...  and ).  Both actions, it seems to me to be compelling evidence of pushing an agenda.  
Now I'm a newbie to Wikipedia BTW.  But I have read and understood the following... "Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy.  What this means is that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor."
I've also posted the above on the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-24 Online Creation page.  
Jlambert 21:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's not possible for NiMUD OLC to exist before August of 1993, this posting  makes it appear that it wasn't an official feature of CthulhuMUD until October of 1993.  There was no mention of making it available to others until the end of 1993 , which was conditional, and private.  The first announcement of a public release was on July 29th, 1994 .  The interesting part is Locke's insistance that it was publically released in September of 1993 (before becoming a feature of CthulhuMUD, long before the Dec 31st offer to release it to a single person, and ten months before the public release of v1.0) --Thoric 23:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dating of nimud 

message: Ugh.  The only cite I could find at the moment is a message out of a flaming thread about Medievia in rec.games.mud.diku, during which time where I was a DikuMUD license violator for not adhering to the greeting credits requirement (which I later corrected).  Anyways, here is the message dated Nov 13, 1994 where I state that RoD has... True Online building (saves rooms, mobs, objects, resets and mobprograms) -- .  --Thoric 00:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay 'nuff said. LOL Jlambert 01:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: After looking at Mozart's announcement in August and yours in September, I thought it might be better to just avoid the issue altogether of when someone is actually sitting down and pounding out the code as unimportant.   Also "inspired" by is well understood to be "original" work (from scratch), while "derived" is well understood to be a "derived work" in a legal sense.   Jlambert 14:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SMAUG cite needed 

message: Since online creation was not in the cited document, the word "customization" (in the tone and words of the original author, Mr. Skrenta) has been chosen.   Young Zaphod 01:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been discussed and agreed to above that this article is about 'online creation'.  You've never answer why you keep changing it, Locke. Jlambert 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: discussed by who?  i disagree. the above reason is perfectly adequate reasoning as to why it should not be contained in that part of the article.   LOCKE IS NOT HERE.  Young Zaphod 02:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monster's customization 

message: Some stuff in the article suggests there maybe should be a disambiguation page for non-MUD stuff.  The Sauerbraten (game) link sticks out like a sore thumb.  Does anybody have suggestions for what to do regarding non-MUD stuff?  There could be a link at the top of the page to a disambiguation page which has with links to other non-MUD stuff, like Metal does (the main article is about chemistry, the disambiguation page has links for heavy metal music, etc).  That's appropriate when the term almost always refers to one thing.  We could also move the current one to Online Creation (MUD) and replace the current one with a list of things, with Online Creation (MUD) as the first link, which would be appropriate for stuff where when people think "Online Creation" they don't automatically think of MUDs (which I think is probably the case for most people who don't play MUDs; I myself am involved with MUDs and even I don't think that online creation is especially specific to MUDs).  A third option would be to just ignore non-MUD stuff, and not have such links to Cube (game) derivatives and all that.  I personally would prefer the latter and just leave out the non-MUD stuff.  What are other peoples' opinions on this?  Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 12:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the third option.  I simply don't see the relevance or connection. Jlambert 13:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the third option, too. I never seem to hear this term in a non-MUD context. 3D Engines generally refer to this as 'in game editing' or somesuch (Doom3, Torque, etc). And they seem to consider it a much smaller deal than the MUD community does. Ehheh 15:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: I also made a 2nd archive of the talk page as it was getting quite long.  Jlambert 13:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second archive 

message: Locke is not here. Young Zaphod 20:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "www.cheechandchong.com is my finest work." - m_m (Locke) You and Locke share another common interest. Jlambert 22:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seemingly random [[Cheech & Chong (album)|Cheech and Chong]]'s "Dave" reference 

message: The description summary didn't fit, here's what I was going to put for my last edit: talk page has no mention of weasel words, removing weasel template; "customization" link when "customization" is not used anywhere in specific; "online"->"in-game" since "online creation" makes Locke sad; correcting Armageddon ("privately" distributed, but "released"?); removing the part about SOI influencing MUME since SOI's web site  says it started in 2002; removing the periodically updated open source part, since every single thing listed here has had more than 1 release, and it wasn't initated as an open source project, but eventually became one in 1994; removing list of claims by Locke since that's more appropriate for the talk page; getting rid of legal mumbo jumbo since Jlambert is right in that it isn't really that important here, but maybe on the NiMUD article; getting rid of both "citeneed" things since there doesn't seem to be anything supporting them; removing Sauerbraten (game) link since there seems to be consensus about limiting this article to MUDs
--Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 22:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the command is called customization, and described as creation, it probably should be referred to as online creation I guess. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 23:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: While we're on the subject, why exactly *can't* we say in-game creation or online creation? I'd like to hear your reasoning, Mr 151. If it's really just what the cite says, I'll be happy to provide an alternate citation that refers to Monster's features as online creation. Ehheh 23:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pulled from the Mediation thing: Well, I disagree with this because his parents are very proud of the fact that he and Locke coined the term "Online Creation" and because it wasn't in general use before that. Its the only thing they have left of him, and it was his only influence on the world. He should be duly credited with releasing the first OLC for Diku because that is what he and Locke did. Eggster 14:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very disrespectful, I hope that my "friends" don't tell everyone that I've made no significant mark on the world, and that they need to spread misinformation about me in order to follow my last wishes :( --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 00:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, we might think so but I don't think he can help it. I don't intend that link there to be any sort of personal attack.  I am not without empathy, but it explains itself. Jlambert 01:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I saw that. But since the legs have been cut out from under that assertion (it certainly was in general use) I'm wondering if there's some other  kind of rationale behind the reverting that we can address to reach a compromise. Otherwise this article seems to be on the road to RFC/Arbitration. Ehheh 02:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Whatever, man, you're opinions someone else's opinions, anonymous contributions to the lie machine.  ALA: Who cares. 151.201.48.208 03:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   You haven't answered the question posed.  Also I've been told to formally ask you if 151.201.48.208/Young Zaphod/Eggster/68.162.148.34/66.101.59.248/151.201.32.118 or any others are you Herbert "Locke" Gilliand author of NiMUD?  If so which and which not? Jlambert 19:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bunch of stuff 

message: I will admit if this condition is broken I can assume no action can be taken;
and if so .. so be it.
Taken from a 1993 usenet posting called "online creation code!!"
151.201.48.208 00:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a few more of the headings should have "Seemingly random" in them. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 01:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How NiMUD OLC First Got Distributed 

message: Start
    Abridged OLC Tree                        |
                                             V
                    AberMUD<--------------Monster  ('some object creation features')
                   /(no OLC)               (1988)
                  /    |                     ||
                 /     |                     \/
                /      LP <---------------TinyMUD        
              Diku                       /   |   \
            (no OLC)                    /    |    \
           / |  \                TinyMUCK    |    TinyMUSH 1.0 
     Circle  |   \                          MOO         /    \
     |       |    \                         DUM      MUSE   TinyTIM
     |     RPIMUD* \                        MUG         \    /
     |              \                                   PernMUSH
 Sam's OLC  (MUME)   Merc (no OLC)                       /    \
     |                |           \               PennMUSH    TinyMUSH 2.0
     |                |            \                                |
   Oasis           NiMUD (Isles)**  \                               |
     |           Online Creation     SMAUG                       TinyMUX
     |                |
  RoAOLC              |
                   ILAB/OLC
                  /   |    \
                 /    |     \
            Ivan's  ROMolc  EnvyOLC
 * Contains Armageddon's Creation Code by Jhalivar
** Most widely distributed in derived works.
Copyright (c) 2006 Herb Gilliland.  All rights reserved. 
Used with permission on Wikipedia under Creative Commons Limited License.
:I've fixed up the MUSH side a bit, but it's still missing some intermediate steps (like MicroMUSE and TinyTIM) and it's not as reflective of some of the cross feature mixing as it should be. I dunno if layout will cooperate with putting a tree like this in the article while maintaining accuracy - The real derivations are more complicated than this. Ehheh 18:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rec.games.mud FAQ says it's another TinyMUD derivitive, with jives with my recollection. I don't remember it being all that widespread or popular, though. Ehheh 16:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done.151.201.48.208 16:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding the SMAUG move: Thoric said he based it off Mozart, which is based on Oasis. 151.201.48.208 16:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MozartOLC was written from scratch, and so was SMAUG OLC.  --Thoric 15:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The earliest mention of DUM on Usenet is May '90.  I think it's an original work in itself. (inspiration might have been Tiny or Aber or both).  The Monster-Aber connection if there is any would have to go the other way as Aber was written in 1987 before Monster.  Oasis OLC(96) postdates Mozart(94) by two years.  Jlambert 17:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Further examination reveals it's probably based on CircleMUD OLC.  Young Zaphod 23:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OLC Tree [http://www.mudolc.org/tree.txt] 

message: This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Doc ask? 12:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for Deletion debate

message: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.162.128.9 (talk • contribs) .
In case any other editors come along and see this, this article isn't under mediation - the request was rejected as invalid Ehheh 15:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfM on Ehheh, Atari2600tim, sock puppets / mousekateers of jlambert 

message: summed up with the image  151.201.14.34 12:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  incessant edit barbarism 

message: Why is there mention of the creator's email in the Emlen section? Denambren 13:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I have no idea.  It's probably because the editor is new to wikipedia. I removed it.  Jlambert 01:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanity in Emlen