Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.246.228.24 (talk) at 02:32, 12 October 2006 (→Why bother?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• /Archive 1: February 2004 – September 2005
• /Archive 2: October 2005 – February 8 2006

Tim's edits on Feb 9 '06

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)

The above is me, this computer's being weird and logged me out I guess. --Atari2600tim 19:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Also, I finished cleaning some personal attacks on this page a little better, I only kinda half-deleted them earlier. --Atari2600tim 19:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

refactoring talk page

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)

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)

NiMUD updates

Removed repetitive information, rambling incoherent partial sentences, and wholly uneccessary and irrelevant personal information from NiMUD entry. Added repetitions of open source in last paragraph. Advise still breathing author and sockpuppets operated by said author to make up their collective minds whether the software is open source or something else. Deleted reference to Dmud, a toy mud recently released by the vain glorious non-deceased author of NiMud. Jlambert 15:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed rather interesting but irrelevant personal information from VME entry. The topic is Online Creation. Would Locke or his sockpuppets care to expand on the general features of DIL scripts that are relevant to article. Jlambert 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like an explanation from the reverter of my changes to the NiMUD entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlambert (talk • contribs)

Removing personal information makes no sense: a person creates software. To remove personal anecdates is to anesthetize history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.148.34 (talk • contribs)

I also reverted the changes to the opening paragraph. The term "online creation" was NOT coined by either Locke or Surreality. The term was in use well before their time IRT muds. See here and here. Second, the monster documentation does NOT contain the term "build" or "building" anywhere, it uses the term "create" and "creating" throughout to describe the activity. My personal speculation as to why the term was first changed to building and then to customization was so the claim for the term "online creation" can be made. Again this is not a vanity page Locke. Nor is it a place to create a revised history sympathetic to anyone's ego, dead or alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlambert (talk • contribs)

According to WP:V information has to come from a reliable source. Personal anecdotes don't necessarily meet that standard. Besides, that bit about the coinage of the term really should be cited to somewhere, especially since it's a contentious point. Ehheh 16:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again removed the same changes! There is no need to duplicate information in the NiMUD entry into the opening paragraph. Especially if it isn't correct - see above citations. Chris Woodward has is no more importance to online creation/building than Rich Skrenta or Jim Apsnes. How come you haven't written an entry on the first DikuMUD to have online creation yet, Temple? Or EPIC? Do I have to do it Locke? :-) Jlambert 16:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Updated MUSH entry by pulling the most relevant sentence IRT online builing over to this page. Removed the repetitious NIMUD reference. The MUSH entry includes NO NEW information besides the debatable value of the login screen image(?). It looks to me like the entire entry was pulled off the MUSH page merely as a pretext to provide yet another reference to NIMUD. Now instead of making repeated references to NiMUD or that DuneMUSH inspired Locke and Surreality to create their OLC, perhaps you ought to write up in the NiMUD entry just what exactly DID YOU learn from DuneMUSH IRT online building. That would be a personal anecdote that adds to the topic of online creation. Jlambert 17:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed Locke's edits that say Oasis OLC was derived from EnvyOLC and thus the Isles. Documentation in Oasis OLC states otherwise. Please cite your references for this claim Locke. Jlambert 19:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Author of CircleMud iedit/redit is identified and acknowledged as "Levork" by author of Oasis OLC in second release. Jlambert 19:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You know you can claim something that is entirely untrue and back it up as though it were, without proper citations. OasisOLC is symbolically similar to Isles/OLC which came out before Oasis was ever written. It is obvious that OasisOLC is based on the same type of interface that Isles OLC was. Not to mention the fact that pre-dating the Isles, OLC was a non-existant term. Before NiMUD OLC, there was only online building 68.162.148.34 23:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not going to get anywhere with that claim on online creation. Look at Jlambert's references above. Heck, here's another one that states 'There are lots of DikuMUDs that have online creation code' It was and is a commonly used, non specific term. Ehheh 00:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Much of Armageddon's code was influenced through a collaboration between Morgenes of Aldara and I. OLC was first distributed to those folks as early as 1992. Thoric and Atari2600tim may be arguing that "online creation" was available as late as "1994" but the reality is that the code in Armageddon and in Aldara were both influenced by me, Locke. 68.162.148.34 13:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I rolled back all of your changes Locke. You have provided zero evidence for backdating your software to 1992. In fact you have by your own words contradicted all such claims with the references you provided at the bottom of the page. Ehheh and my references above from 1991 and 1992 predate your creation of any mud software. Jlambert 14:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

How about this usage of the term from '91? Can you dig up some kind of dated posting of yourself using this term earlier than that so it can be used as a reference? Ehheh 15:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The references he provided in the references section stipulate May 93 as his first UseNet post. He's already stipulated that Hidden Worlds is his inspiration for online creation, which makes this link of interest "Hidden Worlds, at 192.156.196.1 4000, is using essentially unmodified vego code at the moment" The earliest date I can find Hidden Worlds on a mud listing is 1993. His own words, "I played NamelessMUD, Hidden Worlds, and, yes, one other. That is the TOTAL listing of all the muds I have *EVER* played." Jlambert 15:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever with that quote: the first mud I played on was Nameless, but I had played MUSHes before that (and Zork). The first text-based adventure game source I ever worked on I copied from a book called "Write Your Own Adventure Games" which I had my father's fiance copy from a book in 1986. It was written in BASIC. Then I went on to DivWeb, a long defunct MUCK co-authored by Shawn Knight which was hosted at CMU and was primarily for Wiccans and Occultists. After that, I got involved with Chris Tchou (now at Bungie) who co-authored my first graphical adventure FutureStrike . For my high school Computer Science course, I wrote a Zork-like game called "Search for the Mystic Z" for my final project. -Locke 68.162.148.34 16:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

From: Santiago Zorzopulos 
Date: Fri, Jun 19 1992 4:02 am
Groups: rec.games.mud.misc
Not true... There are lots of DikuMUDs that have online creation code (including
my own, Armageddon), that is almost as extensive as any MUSH or MUSE.  Other
Diku imps have written similar code, and online creation is available on
many DikuMUDs now. 

A year before you started your first mud Locke per your own references. Your claims cannot be verified. Please cease inserting such information into the encyclopedia. Jlambert 16:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't believe the author's anecdotes and evidence, why don't you track down Max Karpiak and ask him to tell the story. He was a great friend of both Chris and I, from Infinity BBS. Morgenes of Aldara (and Armageddon) knows that my code influenced his work.

68.162.148.34 16:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of believing the anecdotes or not. Misplaced Pages policies require that information be cited and/or referenced so that it can be verified. Ehheh 16:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Length

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)

I noticed that Ehheh and jlambert have similar writing styles, and Atari2600tim has "gone by the way" (probably a "reserve" sock-puppet). I have filed for Mediation. Eggster 17:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

SPEAK OF THE DEVIL, IN SWOOPS SOCK PUPPET #3: ATARI2600TIM! Eggster 17:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are concerned about sockpuppet activity, you're welcome to file a CheckUser request. Ehheh 17:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If he doesn't do a CheckUser request then I'm going to myself later. --Atari2600tim 19:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

In response to the article length I would point out that it was about 23k and well under recommendations. Even if it were its not an imperative thing to be done without giving the contributors a go at editing it. From what I've read Misplaced Pages policy does not recommend just deleting information when its sourced and relevant to the article. When I added the information on the other OLCs I invited discussion over the length (see talk above). Regardless I have edited the monster entry to provide a more informative summary. If the consensus is other entries in the article need shortening I can and will do similar summaries with an eye to shortening the section without total lossage. Jlambert 21:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

armegeddon olc

Added new information on Armageddon's OLC and sourced it. Jlambert 22:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Armageddon's OLC is no longer public. 68.162.148.34 00:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Differences between online building and online creation (for ehheh)

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)

Corrections - cites requested

• 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.{{citeneeded}}

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)

• No current version of NiMUD was released in 2006. Homeless Unemployed 23:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

bad usenet references

Removed references to usenet posts Locke claimed as his. Both references were to posts made from @cnsvax.uwec.edu by a garyke aka Ender/Locke from Sloth. Not the same Locke posting from @telerama.pgh.pa.us and @andrew.cmu.edu. Jlambert 09:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Not true; Locke's first posts were done from a site in the UK. I don't believe that Ender/Locke was from Sloth any more than any other person could have been that person. I think its the first evidence of the OLC project. Locke attests it was his first mud site. Prove otherwise. Locke admits that he was using other people's accounts as this was his first contact with the internet. He was given access by soliciting sites from the others who had them as he did not have access of his own other than a local freenet dialup that allowed telnet. 68.162.148.34 07:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"Prove otherwise." You don't have enough credibility for it to make sense for anyone to bother proving things to you. You still don't even stand behind your own words enough to refer to yourself in first person. Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 08:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that poster, who variously identifies themself as Ender, Locke, and Mouse, played the Dikumuds SlothMud, Renegade Outpost and others. They were posting from the University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire which is not in the United Kingdom, exhibit the annoying e.e. cummings syndrome, and would hardly seem to have any motivation for posting later in August from a site in Pittsburgh, "I will never forget the Merc's and Diku's I have played. I played NamelessMUD, Hidden Worlds, and, yes, one other. That is the TOTAL listing of all the muds I have *EVER* played.", which you've kindly clarified here earlier to not mean that you didn't also play MUSHes and Zork (and of course Wolfenstein3d which you've attached some importance to). Since I'm pretty certain you really meant this Locke and not this Locke I've updated that accordingly.

dating of nimud

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 ) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages BTW. But I have read and understood the following... "Providing sources for edits is mandated by Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-24 Online Creation page.

Jlambert 21:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

The statement There was no mention of making it available to others is false. A late 1993 posting shows a rather loose distribution contract which gave privately distributed copy holders limited liability over distributing copies. "I will admit if this condition is broken I can assume no action can be taken; and if so .. so be it. Have a happy new year." Locke, posting with the account of Donald H. Jones at the UK site, home to NiMUD and CthulhuMUD. 68.162.146.220 01:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

SMAUG cite needed

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)

Okay 'nuff said. LOL Jlambert 01:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Monster's customization

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)

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)

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)

Here's a quote.

Appendix C: Customization Subsystem Menus
Room Customization:
-------------------
Custom> ?
D       Alter the way the room description prints
N       Change how the room Name prints
P       Edit the Primary room description  (same as desc)
S       Edit the Secondary room description
X       Define a mystery message
G       Set the location that a dropped object really Goes to
O       Edit the object drop description (for drop effects)
B       Edit the target room (G) "bounced in" description
T       Set the direction that the Trapdoor goes to
C       Set the Chance of the trapdoor functioning
M       Define the magic object for this room
R       Rename the room
V       View settings on this room
E       Exit (same as quit)
Q       Quit (same as exit)
?       This list
Exit customization:
-------------------
Custom > ?
A       Set an Alias for the exit
C       Conceal an exit
D       Edit the exit's main Description
E       EXIT custom (saves changes)
F       Edit the exit's failure line
I       Edit the line that others see when a player goes Into an exit
K       Set the object that is the Key to this exit
L       Automatically look  / don't look on exit
O       Edit the line that people see when a player comes Out of an exit
Q       QUIT Custom (saves changes)
R       Require/don't require alias for exit; ignore direction
S       Edit the success line
T       Alter Type of exit (passage, door, etc)
V       View exit information
X       Require/don't require exit name to be a verb
?       This list
Object Customization:
---------------------
Custom object> ?
A       "a", "an", "some", etc.
D       Edit a Description of the object
F       Edit the GET failure message
G       Set the object required to pick up this object
1       Set the get success message
K       Set the Kind of object this is
L       Edit the label description ("There is a ... here.")
P       Program the object based on the kind it is
R       Rename the object
S       Toggle the sticky bit
U       Set the object required for use
2       Set the place required for use
3       Edit the use failure description
4       Edit the use success description
V       View attributes of this object
X       Edit the extra description
5       Edit extra desc #2
E       Exit (same as Quit)
Q       Quit (same as Exit)
?       This list

You are quoting from the command appendix. I've block quoted the authors description of the system in the article. Jlambert 02:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

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)

I agree with the third option. I simply don't see the relevance or connection. Jlambert 13:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Second archive

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

Constant reverts

Also there were 3R's here also with Locke continually changing the terms 'online creation' to something else:

1. (cur) (last) 21:19, 14 February 2006 Young Zaphod m
2. (cur) (last) 21:08, 14 February 2006 68.162.148.34 (rv Nope.)
3. (cur) (last) 20:49, 14 February 2006 Young Zaphod m (?Monster)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlambert (talk • contribs)

Seemingly random Cheech and Chong's "Dave" reference

Locke is not here. Young Zaphod 20:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"www.cheechandchong.com is my finest work." - m_m (Locke) You and Locke share another common interest. Jlambert 22:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

bunch of stuff

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)

You can say its customization because the appendixes refer to the commands as "Customization", rather than in-game. 151.201.48.208 23:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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). That's him talking about hisself in third person. He's a sick puppy in my opinion, which ought not count for much, but I feel I ought to say it. Jlambert 00:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

weasel words

Would the person who placed "This article contains weasel words, which may compromise its neutrality. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page." please place a relevant discussion on the talk page? Thanks in advance. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 12:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful to state what those weasel words are, why and what they should be changed to here. Jlambert

The template is worded in such a way as to encourage people to fix the problems of the article; however, lack of discussion on the talk page means that whoever notices and tries to fix it will just be sent on a wild goose chase trying to find this "relevant discussion on the talk page" which they're supposed to look at. That tag should not be added until after the problems have been mentioned on the talk page, with specific mention of it (such as "This is why I am adding the weasel words tag..."). I would suggest that the tag should be removed until there actually -is- a relevant discussion here; as the tag is referring to a non-existant thing. It was added more than 24 hours ago, I think it's reasonable to think that if the tag was added on the article first, with intent to discuss it here immediately afterward, then it would have been put on here by now. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 01:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How NiMUD OLC First Got Distributed

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)

Perhaps a few more of the headings should have "Seemingly random" in them. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 01:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OLC Tree

                                           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 Misplaced Pages 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)

DUM is actually based off AberMUD I think. Where does MUG fit in? Young Zaphod 23:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Well done.151.201.48.208 16:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

MozartOLC was written from scratch, and so was SMAUG OLC. --Thoric 15:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Further examination reveals it's probably based on CircleMUD OLC. Young Zaphod 23:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

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

RfM on Ehheh, Atari2600tim, sock puppets / mousekateers of jlambert

{{RFMF}} —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)

Tim's edit on 4/20/06

I think Ehheh just changed both places where he saw 1993 without looking at the context, when he recently changed it to say that NiMUD was written and first released in 1994. It was first given out to the public on July 29, 1994. However, it obviously was written either during that day, or before that day. I don't think it is of any significance whether it started on Jan 1 94 or whether it started in 1993, so I'm just going to remove that part. One can assume that he started on it at some point prior to when he gave it out to people. I myself made the mistake of reverting both dates when I misread one of the recent diffs, so I can obviously sympathize with what happened. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 12:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Under the above "dating of nimud" section, the conflict had previously been resolved. Information has been revised. 151.201.14.34 01:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a consensus has been reached that it was written in '93 and released in '94, as the "dating of nimud" section says. Is the time that it was written in any way relevant to this article though? I would say that the public release is of some significance because that's when people other than you and a few friends could start using it. However, when it was written is fairly insignificant, and makes it hard for readers to see the difference between them. As I pointed out, Ehheh actually edited both 1993's and changed them to 1994 (thus making the writing time wrong), and you yourself changed both to 1993 (thus making the release time wrong). I myself looked at both of your changes and didn't realize that they were regarding different info (I thought it was redundant until I read the entire paragraphs). I don't think having the extra time adds anything to this article. When you "revised" the article, you also made it say that it was released in 1993, so obviously having it there adds some confusion. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs)

incessant edit barbarism

summed up with the image 151.201.14.34 12:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Vanity in Emlen

Why is there mention of the creator's email in the Emlen section? Denambren 13:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Online Creation: Original Research?

Hi.

I'm currently investigating whether this article conforms with Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I doubt you're going to get consensus that Herb's personal site constitutes a reliable source. Ehheh 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Who is Herb? Denambren 16:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Herb is a problem user that is trying to get indefinitely banned from editing Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

Denambren, don't worry about Herb. He's not anyone important. Nandesuka 22:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Preparing for a rewrite

Right now this article is mostly a laundry list of various MUDs (notable and non-notable) that allegedly provide online creation tools. I think that's a mistake. When I have time, I plan on reworking this to focus more clearly on the topic of "online creation," and reducing the listcruft. I've gone ahead and nuked the command lists already, since they add nothing useful to the topic for the new reader. Nandesuka 14:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article by paring it to the bare essentials. Feel free to re-add in (or better yet, write new text) if you think I've chopped too much, but please try to keep from going back to "let's discuss every obscure MUD ever made in upsetting levels of detail." Nandesuka 20:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

While I still think that this is not particularly noteworthy to begin with (editing external data files via the same program which uses the data), this article has had a drastic swing in quality level with your one edit. Good job! Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 21:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Radical proposal: rename this article to "Monster (MUD)". Redirect "Online creation" to that article title.

Thoughts? Nandesuka 12:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems slighted toward "Monster (MUD)" why not create article "Monster (MUD)" and then create a seperate article "online creation" 24.131.64.194 23:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've created Monster (MUD) and redirected it here. Thanks for the suggestion, Anonymous User! Nandesuka 23:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Jlambert, you indicated in your edit summary that you'd explain why you reverted my changes on the talk page, but I haven't yet seen the explanation. Can you explain? While reasonable people can disagree about which MUDs should be listed, I specifically don't understand how the command lists add anything to the article. Can you elaborate? Thanks. Nandesuka 10:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna try to answer both your questions at the same time. I kinda read the edit summary in a different way, Explain intention on talk page. could mean "I explain..." or "I would like for you to please explain...". I can't speak for Jlambert as to which one it is, or if it's some other third meaning that I didn't think of. I also can't speak for Nandesuka when I offer a guess as what his intentions are beyond what is written above... I think that Nandesuka did the reduction because the article was primarily about what command is in each of a certain list of OLC systems. As a result, it was basically a FAQ for each OLC system compiled together and not something that seemed really general-encyclopedia-ish, but perhaps maybe alright on a MUD or computer gaming focused Wikia project and linked to from here. Personally, I don't know if an article about OLC really offers anything at all, since I think programs changing a database and using it at the same time is really nothing particularly revolutionary. On a per-program level it could be considered an accomplishment as it might require stuff to be rewritten, but the concept itself doesn't seem like such a big deal. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I wanted you to explain what you are rewriting. All you've done is delete information. You haven't added new information nor have you rewritten anything. I suggest you download the article and actually rewrite it. Jlambert 22:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I have deleted information on tangential information that would serve to confuse the reader. Knowing what to cut out of an article is an important part of editing. Do you really think that any readers are interested in reading excerpts from help files? This is not a rhetorical question. Do you? Nandesuka 22:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Please prepare a rewrite which includes information already sourced in this article. Mass deletions of information in NOT A REWRITE.

I'm not going to edit war over this, but I will post an RFC inviting other editors to look at the article. The information I am deleting is, frankly, trivia, and not appropriate for a general encyclopedia. Can you please explain why you believe the material in question is valuable? What purpose does it serve? Nandesuka 22:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important. More important to than the plot of South Park episodes and more important than the Brittany Spears discography. If you want to rewrite it then REWRITE it. Mass deletion is NOT a REWRITE. Frankly I'm of several minds. 1) I spent many hours researching it, and to have some goober just delete it because it don't interest them is crap. 2) I recognize than mud history is a rather esoteric subject, and is probably better preserved by people who give a shit about it than wikipedians. Jlambert 22:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And thirdly if your deletions are in any way motivated by ensuring NiMUD and Locke are not mentioned then you had better reconsider that. I had to revert your editting out of their names a few weeks ago, and it seemed to me to be retaliatory as you did not edit out others names. Jlambert 23:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am refering to thi edit] above. Jlambert 23:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And fourthly, if you'd rather nominate the page for deletion, I'd rather fo along with that than to preserve a page that has been completely denuded of all information related to the subject matter. Jlambert 23:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, please moderate your tone. Disagreement over the subject matter does not give you license to be rude.

I understand that you may feel strongly about content you've created, but the nature of Misplaced Pages is that none of us own the submissions we make. Everything here can — and will — be edited without mercy.

The relevant question is not whether the material interest me, but whether it would interest the readers of a general-purpose encyclopedia. It seems to me that some of this material, however long you spent researching it, is simply too trivial to include. That's only my opinion, of course, but I did discuss my edits on the talk page here, and at least one other regular editor of the page felt that my edits substantially improved the article. I think you need to sit back and look at these laundry lists dispassionately. I think if you do, you'll see that they substantially damage the quality of the article. What you call "mass deletion" I call "throwing out the chaff and preserving the wheat." Hope that helps. Nandesuka 00:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about some of the prose, but I strongly agree that the command lists add nothing and should be removed. Ehheh 00:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comparing the pre-culling to now this is now a tighter, more readable article. When a person who is not deeply enmeshed in the MUD world comes to this page, they get a digestable summary of the topic. This does not mean that there are not people for whom the over-detailed version was useful, simply that this is not the audience that we write for. There may be some scope for adding a précis of the removed information. - brenneman 01:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Readable? How about accuracy? The term "crafting" does not appear in the original article, the paragraph entitled Online Creation vs. Crafting does not even make a comparison. Did you even read the edit!! Short and tight? How about illiterate, made up, and nonsense. Reverting. Jlambert 03:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've rolled back to the shorter version, a slightly more provocative edit than I would normally make. The growing consensus on this page supports a more concisely written article. - brenneman 04:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The consensus may be shorter, but no explanation whatsoever has been given for the made up terms the user added to the article. If the user cannot edit the article without inserting unsourced terminology then maybe someone else (i.e. knowledgable) should attempt the edit. I understand from the edits (see above) that user has a grudge against Locke and is determined to excise all information IRT NiMUD from the article. Also NOTE the user editted the article to state that the information would be found elsewhere (i.e. DikuMud, MercMud, TinyMud) but is apparently to lazy to be bothered with actually moving said information there. So what is the purpose of deleting the information. Note there is no rewrite, just... well vandalism. Which is ironic. Jlambert 04:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've asked you several times now to identify which information, precisely, you feel was essential to the understanding of the topic that I removed. It would be helpful to everyone if you could please do so, with a level of precision greater than "all of it." In order to evaluate your claim that "information has been removed" we need to understand not only what that information is, but its relevance and importance to the subject. Thanks. Nandesuka 11:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the information you deleted. The article no longer contains the command lists, but as several people have pointed out, you have not justified deleting information concerning LPmud and DikuMuds. Now if you'd like to rework the information to present it more effectively then do so. I ask you not to gratuitously delete information. Rewrite and summarize if you want. I have no clue where you are going with prevalence section. As far as I'm concerned you could have included any number of pointless and useless quotes like say "A stitch in time saves nine". Nevertheless I left your, IMNSHO, abstract nonsense in the article in order to let you develop it. Jlambert 14:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As a mud coder (LP style), I agree that excising the command lists was a necessary step for this article (I've been looking for a place to direct wizard (MUD)). But as it stands currently, it's too focused on Monster, which could be alleviated by a bit more comparison of abilities, instead of command lists, for online coding. But sourcing that will be tricky. -- nae'blis 14:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nanduska's talk page on my watch list - I consider his edits to be hugely beneficial. JBKramer 20:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"respective pages" claim

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)

I have restored the information on DIKUMUD OLC systems that Nandesuka has gratuitously deleted with no consensus. Jlambert 14:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

My sincere apologies for making an erroneous assumption. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 14:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

See User:Nandesuka/Young Zaphod Sockpuppetry for more detail, Extreme Unction. Nandesuka 14:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

You accidentally put a period after "confirmed" instead of a colon. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 16:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Further rewrite directions

Here's where I plan to take the article. Speak up if you object, or if you think I'm headed in the right direction.

The interesting material here is what online creation abilities existed, and how they are distinguished from each other. That material should be enhanced and elaborated on. Uninteresting material includes personal details on the authors of every MUD-like system ever written, release dates, and quotes from USEnet postings. In other words, the current article's focus on the minutiae of which distributions influenced which other distributions is completely boring to most readers.

In other words, the current hybrid article spends too much time talking about who and when and nearly no time at all talking about what. I think we should fix that. I think every "who" in the article that isn't notable should be eliminated without mercy.

I also think the breaking up of the article into 784,348,232 subsections, one for each MUD, makes it both harder to read and less useful. Nandesuka 15:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the authorship details don't belong here, but when a particular codebase is mentioned by name, I think the release date is helpful, so the reader can easily verify that the code's place in the chronology of OLC is in fact what the article says it is. Ehheh 15:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The excised command information contained a good deal about "what". I completely disagree with removal of author's names. I agree with the amount..rather the exactitude of the dating is not necessary. Jlambert 17:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, but we should make sure not to overdo it. For example:

The first publicly available on-line creation add-on for Dikumud was written by Dan Brumleve (aka Acidion/Jhalavar) for Armageddon MUD in April 92 and released in June 92

Could be rewritten as:

The first publically available online creation add-on for Dikumud was released in 1992.

I think we have too much detail on the dates specifically because certain parties have used this article as part of a pissing match to stake a claim that their particular implementation of OLC was "the first." The result is that we have all sorts of unnecessary detail about all of these dates. Do we care that Brumleve implemented this in April, not June? Is there a notable controversy surrounding it? If not, just say "1992" and be done with it. If there is a notable controversy, then maybe we go into more detail, if we can explain to the reader why that is important. For the specific case where a reader cares about the exact release date, they can look to the citation for the fine details.Nandesuka 16:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I can agree with that. And now that this page doesn't have a daily argument about OLC authors stealing/deriving code from each other, we can get by without so throughly errorproofing the article. Ehheh 17:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Do we care that Brumleve implemented this in April, not June?" Nope we don't care. We do care that you keep the author of the code's name. It didn't develop itself. They don't strike the writers of Brittney Spears tunes on her discography and they don't strike the writers of South Park episodes, and noone has excised Einstein's name from the page on the theory of relativity. Jlambert 17:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"As Misplaced Pages is, or at least aspires to be, an encyclopedia, it strives to contain only material that it is reasonable to believe that others, outside of any given Wiki editor's regular personal sphere of contacts and associates, might want to know..." Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. What is the benefit to the reader of listing every author of every MUD that has had an online creation feature? Please be specific. Nandesuka 18:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's possible to be pretty inclusive without listing every MUD. I think it should have some info about interesting features without having a laundry list or big table with checkmarks or anything like that. A noteworthy amount of MUDs seem to be based on Diku, so it seems to me like it'd be noteworthy to explain what got added to it in at least some of the various forks that people have distributed. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is from DikuMUD: Diku's source code was released in 1991 and became the "source" of one of the largest trees of derived code from a MUD-like source code package. It has been the basis of a vast number of MUDs, including AlexMUD, Eris, GrimneMUD, MUME, and Sequent, as well as a number of offspring MUD engines such as CircleMUD, Merc, SillyMUD, and SMAUG. ...that is all that its article says about the post-last-release development right now, some stuff here could be moved to there. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 18:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well instead of mass deleting the command lists, perhaps you ought to have summarized them in prose. So now the article don't contain enough "what", and according to you, too much "who" and "when". I already lodged my objection to deleting the authors of the software and gave the reasons. The burden is on you to provide examples on Misplaced Pages where books, songs, art and software do not have their creators properly credited and attributed. As a matter of fact you've added three names to this article, Keegan, Koster and Bartle. Why? Because you are supposed to properly credit and attribute sources. So which OLC software are YOU going to provide the "what" for? Which one do you know enough about to do so? Jlambert 03:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't "summarize the command lists in prose" because they didn't add anything useful to the article. Regarding your other point, fortunately, Misplaced Pages doesn't rely on experts, but on third-party reliable sources. If there are no third-party reliable sources discussing ObscuroMUD, then we shouldn't have anything about ObscuroMUD. Nandesuka 03:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well after I added the command lists, I then when back and started to summarize them. Go back in the history and look at the Monster entry. In fact that's just the information you happened to keep on Monster. QV. Now if you've a problem with sources use those tag thingies in the article to indicate them. If you don't know the "what", then how are you going to edit the article. I've already commented on subject matter experts versus no nothing wikipedian issue and got a CIVIL warning. So no further comment. Jlambert 04:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't actually know anything about what I do or do not know about MUDs. The reason you don't know is because I choose not to share it. I choose not to share it because Misplaced Pages is a tertiary-sourced encyclopedia. Until you understand this, you won't understand why the article is poorly written. Nandesuka 12:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I do know that one who would delete information in this article concerning the most popular OLC system in use today from this article either doesn't know much about muds or as I postulated earlier has a grudge against the author of that software. Either the article's topic is completely pointless (deletable) or it is not. If it is not deleteable, the information concerning that OLC IS relevant. Oh yes, the article certainly is poorly written. No argument about that at all. Jlambert 13:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This article certainly was originally written as a vanity puff piece promoting a certain author's obscure software. Fortunately for all of us, none of us own the article, and so it may be edited mercilessly. I raised the issue of deleting it as original research, above, and the consensus of several editors was that, despite the article's tarnished past, the topic of "online creation" is deserving of an article beyond the obscure details of a largely forgotten program. That is where we will be taking this article. Nandesuka 14:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I know the origins of this article. Please get consensus here before deleting important information from the article. I clearly objected to your deletion of Diku related information and your deletion of authors names. Yet you did the edit anyway. Please explain. Jlambert 18:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

(de-indenting). Sure, I'll explain. There's nothing in the DikuMUD sections that I could find that is notable to the "what" topic of online creation as a whole. What did Diku bring to online creation that didn't exist before? If you can summarize that, then we should add it to the article. A list of "Oh, and here are 20 Diku-derived MUDs that supported online creation' is not helpful: there's already a DikuMUD article, and there's already a MUD tree, and we've already seen that there's consensus here to remove the "list of credits" from the article. Hope that helps. Nandesuka 18:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't help. You are the ONLY person who is trying to remove the Diku OLC information. Three people have made suggestions above that included keeping the DikuMUD OLC information. It's rather clear to me that this article does not end in 1990. I have also asked you to provide examples from the Misplaced Pages encyclopedia where the proper attribution of art, literature, music and software has been excised. I count two for and two against on that issue. That is NOT a consensus. Get your consensus by making a successful argument here. Jlambert 19:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask again: what, specifically, about the Diku OLC is unique and notable, other than the fact that it exists? I didn't address your earlier examples about Albert Einstein and Britney Spears out of politeness: I thought the analogy was too ridiculous, on its face, to make a fuss about. Nandesuka 19:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Both Locke and I made both the unique and notable argument above in connection with this article. Jlambert 19:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that argument anywhere on this page. Can you point it out to me? The only thing I see is "Lots of MUDs are based on Diku," which is certain true, but not really relevant to the topic of online creation as a whole. Nandesuka 19:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's your characterization. What has been said by two persons is that the NiMUD/ILAB OLC is the most popular online creation system. It has been incorporated into more muds and is currently the OLC of most muds running. Jlambert 19:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Got a reliable source for that statement? As near as I can tell, that's simply made up. As made up as the claim that the author of NiMUD invented the Hummer H3. Nandesuka 00:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

For statistics on mud servers running - See and earlier messages with same title. Full disclosure... I'm the researcher. Merc, Envy and ROM-based derived running muds greatly outnumber all other muds running. The OLC used on almost every single one of them is ILAB/OLC and Ivans OLC. BTW, Not a single Monster mud is running. Other than being first conceptually Monster has no further claim to fame. Only one or two TinyMuds are running. Around 80+ Mucks are running. If you don't like the statement "most popular" then you edit the statement. Regardless the OLC is certainly highly significant. Jlambert 00:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Of note... there are well over 100 SMAUG MUDs running (133 listed on TMC), most of which are using SMAUG OLC, and not ILAB/OLC. --Thoric 20:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is a pretty close horse race as to which one is most used. While every Smaug Mud has OLC not all Merc, Envy, ROM derived muds are equipped with the Isles/Ilab/Envy/Ivans OLC. Short of logging into each and every one of the and asking whether they've installed it it's impossible to know. Nevertheless Nandesuka stubbornly refuses to include mention of any DikuMUD OLC software on this page. Jlambert 06:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for disclosing that. I think, though, that you need to read WP:NOR. And in any event, the link doesn't work. Nandesuka 00:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The message(s) are machine tabulations I generated from the mud listings at mudconnector.com. I believe the TMC listings qualify as a primary source for currently running muds. Any reasonable person can use the search engine there and manually verify that tabulation. In addition searching the three top three general purpose mud forums (TMC, TMS and MudMagic) for OLC will return more results for the three main Diku OLCs than for any others mentioned in this article. Jlambert 05:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

How is it this "For example, LPMud (1989) tries to avoid the stability risks identified by Bartle by abstracting the system into a virtual machine which is protected from mistakes made in objects written in the game's LPC programming language." even possible given that Dr. Bartle wrote his article long AFTER LPC was developed? Jlambert 17:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The issues existed before Bartle wrote about them. Ehheh 18:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The point I was trying to make was neither Pensjo nor Foard read Bartle's advice and apparently solved the problem. Jlambert 19:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added the word 'later' to the passage in question to clarify that the LPMud guys weren't acting based on Bartle's article. Better? Ehheh 19:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay I have added this back into the article under the LPMUD section Jlambert 20:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring

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)

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 04:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 01:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Because they weren't interested in accuracy? Nandesuka 11:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• 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 05:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Next phase: non-MUD OLC's

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)

No original research

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)

Keegan says that both Tiny and Diku were influenced ('Grafted,' in his terminology) by AberMUD. Ehheh 20:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(comment from banned editor deleted).

Thanks for the clarification. Jlambert 05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Relevent guideline

1000 I'd like some discussion on if (for example) the ludd.luth.se citation qualifies as reliable sources.
brenneman 01:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Commented out source

I've commented out one reference. It did not adress the material of the article as I understand it.
brenneman 09:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Jlambert 12:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Section title "Descendants and Imitators"

(comment from banned editor deleted)

I agree. Jlambert 05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "descendants and imitators" is taken from one of the sources cited. Hope that helps. Nandesuka 13:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Jlambert 14:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Jlambert 03:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

MMORPGS

• All MMORPGS are muds. see Designing Virtual Worlds, Bartle 2003 - also see Mud-Dev FAQ, 1996-2005
• Tale of the Desert is not a notable MUD. Hundreds of muds before it allowed players to create items.
• You might also see the MMORPG page on this Wiki which sources MUD as the first MMORPG.

Jlambert 01:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The MMORPG article very clearly states that the first MMORPGS have their origins in MUDs. That is a very different statement from "all MMORPGS are MUDs". The difference is that the former statement is true, and the latter statement is false. Nandesuka 02:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If it makes you happy, I'd accept changing the title of "Post Text-based MUD".

Accepting for the sake of argument your claim that an MMORPG is a MUD, I simply disagree with you about ATITD not being notable. Based solely on the number of google hits and reviews of it in mainstream publications it's more notable than nearly every other program listed in the article. Nandesuka 02:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of reliable sources going either way on the question "Are MUDs MMORPGs?", and the MUD article itself talks about this question being somewhat controversial. That implies that in this article we should try to avoid taking a stance on that question either way (since it is tangential). Therefore, I'm happy with "Post Text-based MUD" for now. Nandesuka 02:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For Tomorrow

I'm near 3RR for today, so I'll leave off for now, but this is the material I was trying to insert that Jlambert seems to feel is inappropriate. I apologize for only finding a cite to the Wall Street Journal — I guess that's not as reliable source as a 15 year old USENET posting.

Post Text-based MUD

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. 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).. 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.

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)

The Isles OLC is not based on Merc

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)

• I've blocked this account as it was created three minutes after Jaiwills (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was blocked, and this was its first edit. - brenneman 02:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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 02:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Why bother?

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)

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)

Freedom of speech. 70.5.8.18 03:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages works. 70.5.8.18 01:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

That's making personal attacks. 68.246.228.24 02:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

vaguely related article name about another topic

Why does Monster (MUD) redirect to here? This seems comparable to having De Lorean DMC-12 redirect to Gull-wing door. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

1. , Retrieved 8 October 2006
2. Retrieved 8 October 2006
3. 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