Talk:Endless Ages

The notability criterion concerning games state this:

The toy or game has been a subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the game or topic with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a summary of rules or in-game information.

Now there are several links to reviews on other websites, independent of the game. These include: MMORPG.com and IGN just to name two. I believe then that this article meets the criteria of notability, and I will remove the tag tomorrow unless someone else has something to say. --Josellis (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe that it meets those criteria. I'm not entirely sure that MMORPG.com qualifies as a reliable source, and the IGN (which would qualify as reliable, in my opinion) seems very trivial to me, more of an aside than anything. In addition, neither of those sources serve a "general audience" as required. Wyatt Riot (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article meets the notability criterion as further independent reviews have been added since it was tagged for deletion, and I have therefore removed those tags. Scarmudgeon (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Rationale for major edits

I rewrote the initial paragraphs to add clarity and remove redundancy. I changed the name of the sub-header to "Back-story" from "Background" as too much emphasis was put on the business dealings of the people who have owned this game rather than the game itself. The article should be about the game, not so much the people involved with it. I believe a separate article(s) or new "History" sub-head can and probably should be ceated to document those issues.

I removed the second paragraph in the first sub-head as it essentially said the same thing the billboard graf said. I made minor changes throughout the entire article for spelling and grammar errors as well as clarity. I removed the reference to "player owned housing" as that feature is not currently in the game. There may be other factual errors further into the article that I haven't yet got around to fixing, I will soon.

I also added the three screenshots which I took myself, and ensured they meet all fair use guidelines. Please use this section to discuss any further major edits, additions or objections to those I have made. Scarmudgeon (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

now that the game has gone off-line it is appropriate to discuss the reasons for this situation, and that means discussing the various personalities who were responsible for the success or failure of the game. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Developer Credit

Everyone listed in this area should meet the notabilty criterion. The best source for this is the box art and other widely distributed web sites that have reviewed the game. People who merely worked for Avaria or Rapid Reality do not qualify as designers or developers. I cannont find Sean Barnes anywhere in my research of those involved in creating Endless Ages so I must assume that whoever placed this person's name in the 'Credits' category did so in bad faith.

If you are the person who has anonymously added Sean Barnes to this category please provide a reason why you think this person is notable, otherwise I will continue to remove the name. Scarmudgeon (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Personalities over Principle

There has been far too much emphasis placed on gossip, rumor and innuendo by the few who have contributed here. If you don't know the criterion for editing pages here you need to look them up. It's not that hard. Having said that, I believe it's time to create separate pages for all the various people, games and issues that are intrinsic to Endless Ages and its history. It's actually a quite interesting story, in my opinion. I believe it can and should be told without editorializing...but it will take alot of help from everyone involved.

I will take the ball and run with it here by creating a page about Aaron Boucher. I think that's a good place to start. You are welcomed to contribute. But please remember to keep it factual. Scarmudgeon (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A history page(pages) would be a good addition to endlessages, Alot of people believe it is just a game, But the history behind EA. And would be enjoyable to the fan base out there Viffers (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

check Aaron Boucher, I started an EA history on his page. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

now that the game has gone off-line it is appropriate to discuss the personalities involved with its failure. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Jason Lee Chambliss and Brandon Brophy

Both Chambliss and Brophy contradict each other. These were the guys who brought the game back as Endless Ages Reborn for Digital Motion Entertainment, the partnership company. Both claim rights to the game so either someone is lying or a lawsuit will be filed. Anyone with information about this issue is encouraged to discuss it here and provide links to verify what is claimed about this situation. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

after reviewing the link to the US copyright office showing Brandon Brophy as the rightful owner of the intellectual property known as the video game 'Endless Ages' I have decided that the balance of evidence is in his favor and thus the article should reflect this.

Legal documents prove that Jason doesn't own EA

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=4&ti=1,4&Search_Arg=endless%20ages&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=Up2m3mPgSDDI5WNKdL8uNlH9Z&SEQ=20090603053257&SID=1

Copyright stating Brandon owns EA jason isn't in the agreement.

Thanks, this info needs to be worked into the article. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

added the section Current Status - Apparent Ownership Dispute based on the above link and other widely known facts. Please do not edit in a substantial way without discussing rationale here. I will remove any changes made by anonymous editors or those who fail to provide verification in accordance with WP policy. I will provide verification of the facts I have stated as soon as I get the links to the cache pages for these websites that are no longer available due to all the forums being discontinued because the admins didn't pay their bills. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed oogie's fansite from external links

The admin of this site, GM-Chaos removed all the content due to a claimed 'cease and desist order'. The link is no longer appropriate. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Brandon Brophy goes ballistic

He responded to my request for information by stating:

"You better make damn sure what you post is correct, or you will be the one I sue. What are you a cub reporter for your scout troop? Get a job."

so everyone who is volunteering and contributing in the open source effort to bring EA back are just bums or stupid kids who need to get a job? is that what you are saying, Brandon Brophy? how 'bout you keep your game and your ownership rights and see if you can ever market it while badmouthing the very people who care about it and are likely to support it...dumbass. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We can safely assume that Brophy, known as Silent (until someone gets his ire up) won't be forthcoming with verifiable information, possibly to set up a situation where he can sue for liability or defamation. Let it be known he's been given the opportunity to tell the truth but chose to respond by threatening legal action. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a site for the improvement or anything other than a soapbox for this slanderer to gain notoriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.160.221 (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If that's what you think why not sign your comments with your username? What are you trying to hide? Making unfounded, anonymous allegations of impropriety won't get you anywhere. We abide by the rules here. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Brophy has managed to get another editor to remove the images that I uploaded under fair-use guidlines. These images will be replaced and any content removed or deleted that is not in accordance with WP policy will be reverted. I will be filing complaints for vandalizing this page against any editor who fails to give appropriate rationale for deleting content. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

OTRS request# 2009060810044821

This is the ticket number whereby Brandon Brophy or Jason Lee Chambliss have attempted to censure the fair dissemitation of public information about the game by complaining to Wikipedia that information posted on this page is inaccurate and that the images violate his/their copyright. This story will get told one way or another, deleting content and complaining about minor issues of copyright infringement will only increase my resolve to "get it done."

To any editor: the section in question has adequate referral to qualify as "non self-research", however more will be added shortly. Please DO NOT make wholesale deletions without discussing here. Thank you. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No - this is the ticket where communication about the article has come to Wikipedia, any censuring has come from myself. I come to the article subsequently and see completely unsourced text like

• Rapid Reality Studios, a now defunct game developer
• The sequel did not have a very good reception, and in July 2007 the game went off-line.
• Assertion that Jason Lee Chambliss and Brandon Brophy are the same person
• Endless Ages Reborn was plagued with bugs and glitches from the very beginning that made it a less-than-enjoyable experience
• And it appears that Brophy and Chambliss are headed to court
• incompetence on the part of the programmers is a matter of contention

and so one. I suggest that people adding material like this read about writing about living people, reliable sources and writing from a neutral point-of-view. The material was unsourced, negative and regarding living people - material like this should never be in the article in the first place and should be removed as soon as seen. Apart from the copyright office link none of the other sources provided are reliable. The last picture I deleted Image:brandon21.jpg was simply silly to put in the article. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Rapid Reality was a company. Not a person
• did the sequel succeed and is it still online? It's moronic to even question this, go look for yourself if you don't like it.
• Jason Lee Chambliss and Brandon Brophy may or may not be the same person. However circumstancial evidence may suggest they are
• the game WAS buggy, everyone knows it
• as you said, the copyright link is good and it demonstrates the whole point of incompetence and malfeasance.

You happen to disagree and that is fine. Yet you have failed to explain your reasoning for your wholesale deletion of ALL the images on the page. For these reasons I am reverting. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You may find the essay Wikipedia:Truth useful. Things that you believe are true, but are not verifiable to reliable sources, have no place in Wikipedia - Peripitus (Talk) 12:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly there is justification to remove some content at issue here, however removal of all images and even verified statements shows a bias on the part of the editors who have removed this section. I will support Scarmudgeon and continue to revert unless and until those who are making these wholesale deletions actually contribute to the article rather than just vandalizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.135.166 (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments below concerning WP:ASSUME, WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT, all of which may apply here. freshacconci talktalk 19:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

--Scarmudgeon (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)== Editors vandalizing this page ==

Both Peripitus and Freshacconci have engaged in unjustified mass editing of this page which borders on vandalizing. They may have found one or two statements Scarmudgeon made to be unverified. However that does not invoke the authority to remove ALL statements and images that contain sourcing and copyright verification falling within WP policy they happen to have a personal bias against.

It's very easy for these editors to click that "undo" link without bothering to check facts or even concern themselves with improving an article. Had they only removed content that was questionable I would have no problem now. Unfortunately, as Scarmudgeon has noted these two editors exceeded the rules and vandalized this page by focusing on trivialities, minutia, and the dubious legalities of WP policy to justify their tyranny. --Aaron boucher (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not accuse other editors of vandalism when the issue is a content dispute. Always assume good faith. I was merely backing up Peripitus' reasoning for reverting those edits. Likewise, I'd suggest that you read the entries on sock puppets and meat puppets. freshacconci talktalk 19:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I will take that as a bad faith accusation and therefore ignore your insinuation. --Aaron boucher (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

excuse me, but you did not read this talk page and look at all the revision history before deciding to back Peripitus' in the mass deletions? Yes, citing rules is all good and you are commended for that. However, the reasons the article are being reverted have been previously explained and you simply continue to change it back with no further explanation while relying on the previous unjustified rationale. It will not be tolerated. You are engaging in vandalism. --Aaron boucher (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, accusing editors of vandalism for content disputes is not assuming good faith and I recommend you stop it. Likewise, using different accounts to evade the WP:3RR rule and starting edit wars is a major issue. Turning it around and using my words about assuming good faith is very cute, especially when I rightfully questioned how two editors with no edits outside of this article, plus an IP address, are making the same edits. Sometimes, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. It may be time to take this to a different forum, as sock- or meat-puppetry may an issue and edit warring certainly is. freshacconci talktalk 20:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This would be laughable if not so absurd. Again, taking your buddy's side in an argument on face value while repeatadly deleting the content of a page and content you have never bothered reading is my definition of anti-'good faith'. It's very hypocritical of you to be jumping to conclusions the way you have while by-passing protocol to get your way. You haven't the slightest clue about civility or any respect for other WP editors. I have no respect for you.

You and your sock puppet both incorrectly applied the criterion for your wholesale deletions of perfectly good content and are now attempting a defacto justification for you mindless edits. It's not my concern you engage in blame shifting while pretending to follow rules. --Aaron boucher (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The reversion stands until someone else can come up with something better without making mass, unjustified deletions. In the meantime I will continue to improve the article according to WP standards. If you have nothing better to do but revert while sources are gathered so be it. You might want to show the same 'good faith' you rely upon for your dubious tyrannical actions in wiping out mass sections of content you know very well are sourced but are too damn lazy to look at while relying on the 'good faith' rule under Biographies and Biographies of Living Persons when this has nothing to do with it. Do your homework instead of putting the onus on everyone else for finding where you failed to do it. --Aaron boucher (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been talked about enough. freshacconci has now avoided improving this article and following standard WP policy by making wholesale deletions of everything, obsuscated all reason for objection thereto by citing his buddy's non-reasoning, and bypassed all civil procedures to accuse me and Aaron boucher of sock puppetry and/or meat puppetry. How nice, would it be so pretty if we all had such power?

The bottom line is that these deletions were cited under BL and BL-BLP standards and this article isn't even about that. Yes, there are mentions, but to delete entire sections and images that survived challenged long ago is just flat out aggressive editing.

Check the History folks. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Peripitus and Freshacconci

Restore the legitimate content you sock puppets deleted in your sugar-laced deletion foray. Then maybe you can hope to regain the respect of the community. Until then you are just douchebag(s). --Scarmudgeon (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Needless to say, the respect of the "community" that consists of just you (and, I guess, your possible sock/meat-puppet) doesn't concern me. I'll let the process at WP:SPI run its course. As for your last comment, well I guess that speaks for itself and indicates what kind of person we are dealing with here. freshacconci talktalk 23:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point. As has been explained numerous times before, you jumped to conclusions along with your sock/meat puppet to act like tyrants. In the end it won't even matter that you can manipulate the system to your advantage. Think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.135.166 (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll just put up another copy of the original, even if you and your douchebag puppet manage to get my IP banned. I don't care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.135.166 (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The images have been restored to the state prior to when these vandals defaced this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.135.166 (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's freaking ridiculous anyone would think the developers meant to call the planet this game exist on I - I - A, or Eye - eye - aye. Rather than Iia, or eye-uh. But that's what you have to deal with when you have illiterate homeschoolers calling the shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarmudgeon (talk • contribs) 03:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Five years later Freshacconci is still policing this entry and vandalizing it with mindless reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lydoplus (talk • contribs) 19:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)