Jump to content

Talk:Neopets

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Reene (talk | contribs) at 03:14, 22 January 2005 (→Thomas Deaton - an update.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For the "Guide to making neopoints" link at the bottom of the page- is it really fair to do this? There are just so many guides out there, and the site is not affiliated with NeoPets. Maybe this can also be seen as POV. Personally, I think since the site is not affiliated with NeoPets, it does not really add to somebody's knowledge of NeoPets, and since there are so many sites aiming to do what that one does, I believe that the link should be removed altogether. -Frazzydee 23:23, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't think that site's fundamentally any different than the other non-affiliated help sites, like Pink Poogle Toy, Nothing But Neopets, etc. The harm is de minimis, and perhaps it adds something for those who have no prior knowledge of Neopets. Dirtside 17:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Fantasy animals?

"There are also Neopets versions of popular fantasy animals, such as dragons and dinosaurs".

Dinosaurs are real animals, NOT fantasy animals!

Fixed. -Frazzydee 18:20, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So what? The lion is also a popular animal in fantasy. Besides, not -everyone- would agree that they're real ^_~

Golphers?

Are Chias realy golpher-like? I'm not too shure.

Joiz 02:28, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Better to use as examples pets where the original animal is clear to everyone. (The Lupe is a good example.) I would mention the Pteri (a bird) or Bruce (a penguine) instead. Aranel 00:29, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neopets images

I'm thinking about adding images for each of the neopets on their own pages (ie put a picture of a Nimmo on the Nimmo page, Blumaroo on the Blumaroo page, etc). My question is, does anyone know how to handle the copyrights on these images? Bbhtryoink 02:14, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Neopets Terms and Conditions page explains that images are free for use on personal, non-commercial web pages. I don't know about personal, but this ought to count as non-commercial. There's a certain copyright statement that they want to have included. You're right that it seems incomplete to describe the individual pet species without any images to clarify. Aranel 00:22, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A Neopets movie?!

If you go to this link on the oficial Neopets web-site, it says something about a movie comming out winter, 2006. Should this be mentioned in the article?

Joiz 15:34, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

That may just be a joke. I would wait for official confirmation. Aranel 00:31, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do we really need so many external links? The list now is huge. I'm inclined to say that we don't really need any of them. They're all aimed at people who already know what neopets is and are current players, and give information about how to play more than about what neopets actually is, which is the sort of content we want to have here. Including them only encourages other people to add their own links as well, which isn't desirable. If there was some sort of consensus about what the most significant one or two fan sites are, then I'd say go with them, but as it is, this reads predominantly as advertising. Rho 14:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here's the current list, for reference purposes.

British English?

I just edited one use of the spelling "color" since "colour" also appeared in the article. I couldn't figure out which was there first, so I went with the British spelling since the Neopets site actually uses British English except where someone forgot and used something else. I propose that this be the unofficial policy for pages referring to Neopets, since we've got to standardize it to something, and some of the terminology (e.g. the "Grey" Paintbrush) is going to require British spelling anyway. Aranel 01:08, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- Shouldn't the entire website include British English, as British English is the original English language, not American English. If we were to go really far to this, we could make Wikipedia in British English and American English language versions. Benbread 18:08, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, neither is the "original" English language. They have both evolved. It's just that geographical, political, and cultural elements have caused the "original English language" to evolve into several branches (which continue to relate to one another). But that is neither here nor there: Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage and spelling clearly states that there is no preference for one regional variety of English. It has, however, useful to be more or less consistent within one article. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed :) Thanks for explaining that to me.--Benbread 19:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fan sites

I removed the following link to fan sites:

1-The "guide to making Neopoints" is not all that popular or well-known. I've been playing Neopets for two years and I visit lots of fan sites. Neopets fan sites like to link to each other and talk about each other, but I have never heard of this site from anyone else.

2-The same goes for "Neopets Hive" and "NeoHelpers", except that I think I heard of them once. But they are no more worthy for inclusion than any other Neo-help site. (Actually, I've never heard of "Neopets Hive", period.)

3-Neocolours is a credible fan-site and its inclusion would be perfectly reasonable, except that it is all about paintbrushes and such and that is not what this article is about. It is linked on the list of pets article, where it should be.

I think the main Neopets link is all that is needed for this article. Here are some more significant fan sites that might be included if we're going to do the fan site thing, however:

Controversy and News Coverage

I'm considering writing up a bit on some of the controversy and news coverage Neopets has generated over the years (positive and negative), everything from articles about how some teachers use it as an aid to teaching basic economics to their controversial methods of gathering the majority of their income to the recent flare up in Australia. I'm not sure how helpful to the article this might be though. What do you all think? Reene (リニ) 15:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I think it's a good idea. After all, Neopets is a corporation (Company? whatever.) now, not just the website. Any major controversy it generates is definitely article-worthy. PMC 22:26, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pokémon?

"They can also read books and battle each other Pokémon-style." -Shouldn't this be "RPG-style"? After all, that style was used before Pokémon, right? --OGoncho 19:25, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yep. Edited it. I can see why a parallel to Pokémon was drawn, so I left that in, just worded it a bit better. Remove if you see fit. Reene (リニ) 22:12, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thomas Deaton?

Some anon keeps adding "Thomas Deaton" (Apparently himself) as the previously unknown third founder of Neopets. I've been a site addict for five years and I've never heard of the guy. Google only finds one hit for Thomas Deaton + Neopets, and it's a dubious one. [1] I've been reverting the edits as he makes them - is there anyone going to back up his interesting claims? PMC 23:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have never heard of this person, and I've been around Neopets for some time. Unless it's backed up with information from some source other than this person's own website, I'm inclined to suspect either vanity or hoax. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just b/c you guys haven't heard about the other 2 founders (myself and Adam), does not mean that we did not co-found the site with Donna and Adam. It simply means that b/c they are still part of the company, they get to write the history the way they want to. ;) When the company that Doug Dohring was part of bought the site from us, Adam Garner and I decided, for our own reasons, to _not_ work full-time for the then-newly formed company. If I had had my druthers, I would have continued working on/with neopets, but there were serious personal conflicts that arose during that transitional period...and in the interest of the site, I decided to pursue other endeavors; I don't know why Adam Garner (he was the web designer by the way) didn't stay.

As a side note, if you both have been on the site since the beginning (and PMC, you *must* have been, since you claim to have been on the site for five years, and tomorrow marks its 5th anniversary), then you should recall that the original credits, which were done in flash, featured the original handful of neopets (jubjub, scorchio, etc.) along with the founders: myself, Adam P., Adam G. and Donna.

I will continue to modify your modifications. If you don't believe my claims, then you should send an email to the legal department at neopets. They are obligated to state true facts, and if you ask them about Thomas Deaton and Adam Garner, then you will find that, contrary to what you have been led to believe, Adam and I are 2 of the 4 original founders. And we always will be!

Thanks for your time, Thomas :)

No, that's not how it works. If you can't back your claims up, you cannot add it to the article. Please take a good look at the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia before making further edits. Reene (リニ) 00:43, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


Hmmm, interesting: here are 2 of the key policies:

  1. Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject fairly and sympathetically.
  2. Respect other contributors.

It doesn't sound like you are following either of those.


Also, I found these:

  1. Contribute what you know or are willing to learn more about

(I am contributing information that I *know* to be true.)

  1. Always make articles as complete as possible

(I am simply adding information that makes the Neopets article more *complete*.)


- Thomas

Thomas, it may be that you are one of the founders for all I know. However, you aren't making this very easy for us to verify your information. For instance, I am actually George W. Bush's half-brother, but do you see me adding information about myself to the page? Noooo. In other words - back up your facts with an external reference, or give us some proof, or we won't be adding this information to Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:02, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can you prove that information to be true? Just because you say so does not make it law. And look me up - "Neodragoness" being my username. I may not have been on for EXACTLY five years (sue me, I'm rounding) but it's been a damn long time. *grins* I never did see those credits, I was on a computer without flash for a long time and they took those down before I ever saw them. But did they really have Jubjubs? As I recall, they were originally called Jibjibs. Or would you not know that? PMC 02:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's hardly biased to tell you that you cannot add something to an article when there is absoloutely no proof backing it up. You must cite something like this- you can't just say "I know, trust me" ESPECIALLY when it is something of this nature. You're basically telling us to take your word for something there is no proof of. We cannot do that. You've also violated the three revert rule. That is a big no-no. Reene (リニ) 02:28, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


And, what, pray tell, PMC, would be proof? I've already suggested that you send an email to neopets' legal department. They would be compelled to validate my statements. Certainly, if *I* submit anything to you, you're not going to believe it, so I think the ball's in your court.

And, Reene, it *is* biased when you insist upon believing only one (1) point of view.


I've added this dispute to the RfC page. EvianHat, you may add a summation of your argument in the appropriate section below. I ask that you abide by whatever the popular opinion on the matter is. Reene (リニ) 02:44, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

I've done some detective work on this and what I've uncovered seems to lend credence to at least some of these claims. An interview with Adam Powell on Pink Poogle Toy (a neopets fan-site) [2] contains a reference to Adam Garner with regards to the site's founding (question 6).

There is also a reference to "Adam, Adam and Donna" in the Neopets news archive [3] from January 12, 2000 (about two months after the site was started).

These two facts, to me, would seem to suggest that it's likely that Adam Garner was involved with starting the site. I've not managed to find anything that mentions Thomas Deaton at all though. That's not to say that I believe he wasn't involved (or that I believe he was), just that I haven't found anything. Rho 03:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have read the interview in question (it's on a fansite, BTW, and is in no way official or endorsed by Neopets) and I do not believe it is referring to them in such a manner. Rather, I believe they were merely people who were present at the conception and creation. Adam and Donna were the ones that actually produced and maintained the site in the beginning, and while the other two may have offered ideas/suggestions/moral support I highly doubt they had any real involvement. More than likely, if the user that brought up this issue IS in fact one of the people in question, he saw the success that Neopets had, got upset at himself for not taking a more active role, and is seeking to elbow in on a bit of that fame.
The simple fact is that he isn't acknowledged in the slightest as a co-founder by anybody that matters. The only things we have to go on are his word and a passing, non-specific mention by the real co-founders (assuming they did in fact say that). Now, perhaps there is more to this- perhaps it's just some vast conspiracy on the part of Adam and Donna to keep all the fame to themselves, but I somehow doubt it. Reene (リニ) 04:24, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
If I was just going off the interview, then I'd agree with you. In fact, that's what I thought when I read the interview. It was reading the bit of the news archive, with reference to a second Adam, that made me think that there was possibly something going on here. It isn't conclusive, I know, but it definitely made me reconsider somewhat. Rho 15:56, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is just FYI (since I'm waiting to here what No-One Jones gets back from neopets): Adam G. and I did more than just offer moral support/suggestions, etc. We all 4 *started* building neopets.com in the latter part of September, 1999. Adam G. designed the web-site (he did all the navigation graphics...they're still in use today) and I worked on a tile-based "world" that the neopets would play around in. I also wrote the java chat program that was in use until February, 2000 (note: my code was taken down from the site at that time b/c we were still negotiating my individual terms of the buyout...there was the possibility that they would not own my code after the deal was done, so *they* took it down). In addition to these contributions, we all 4 basically worked night and day for 6 straight weeks to get the code and art for neopets.com up and running. We also brain-stormed ideas together over meals, then we'd come back to our "office", a little 2-bedroom apt. in Beverly Hills, and continue working on our respective parts.

Also, I want to point out that I am not bringing up this issue because I am "upset at myself[sic] for not taking a more active role". As I stated in an earlier post, I wanted to continue to work on and with neopets, but there were some very serious personal issues that developed during the process of our web-site being purchased. Adam Powell, Donna Williams and I no longer get along. Adam Garner and I speak from time to time, and he's a very nice guy. But the issues that led to my decision to depart had more to do with Adam P., Donna and Doug D.. It got to the point that in around February, 2000, Adam P. (or whoever controlled the server then) changed my login info on the neopets server...so I was basically shut right out of continuing any work on the site. :( And b/c my issues have to do with Adam P, Donna and Doug D. (the CEO), guess what? They don't mention me on the site.

The main reason I brought up this issue is that I ran across this page and saw that Adam P. and Donna are still receiving *all* of the credit for starting the site. And since this (wikipedia) is a more democratic arena than the neopets web-site (since they have a lot more control there), I thought this would be a good place to tell a little bit of the story the way it really happened. :)


Thanks again for your time, Thomas :)

There are two things wrong with all of that: No original research is allowed on Wikipedia (which is as good as what this is) and Wikipedia is not a soapbox (though you seem to want to use it as one as you yourself admit). Your story may be quite interesting and even true but without substantial proof it cannot be put on the article. I doubt even the legal department would admit you had involvement in the earlier parts of the site- They legally wouldn't have to and something like that would be bad for their image. So what leg do you have left to stand on? Reene (リニ) 01:30, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Let's see, according to wikipedia:

A wikipedia entry counts as research if it proposes ideas, that is: 

   * It introduces a theory or method of solution;
   * It introduces original ideas;
   * It defines terms; or
   * It introduces neologisms.

The *facts* that I have been discussing are not (a) theories, (b) original ideas, (c) definitions of new terms, nor (d) neologisms. Really, you're grasping at straws there. Reene, you are a *very* narrow-minded person, whoever you are...in fact, I suspect that you may have ulterior motives for keeping this information off of this site. Thankfully though, there are more people than just yourself involved in this process. Finally, I would be more than happy to stop "passionately advocating my POV", as long as you would kindly refrain from making statements that (a) call into question my honesty, and (b) question my motivation for discussing this topic.

Thank you, Thomas :)


Interesting, I just found this on the page that Reene pointed to earlier:

What should not be excluded:

The following are NOT grounds for exclusion: 

  1. Listing claims which have little or no supporting evidence;

Can some objective party please explain whether or not this means that my claim *can* be added (even if we don't get the evidence)?

Thanks again, Thomas :)

May I also point you to No personal attacks as well? I would appreciate it if you didn't attack my integrity as an editor in your attempt to push your POV onto the article.
You are introducing new ideas/"facts": The idea that you are some long-lost co-founder of Neopets is and was unheard of before you showed up.
You aren't merely trying to list a "claim" here by the way, you're trying to list this in the opening paragraph of the article as a fact when nothing supports it. There is a huge difference and you really need to learn a thing or ten about Wikipedia and its policies before you start attacking others and building flimsy strawmen to support yourself.
Two objective parties have given their opinion here on this matter, one of which is an administrator. I highly doubt the legal department of Neopets is going to give a flying fig about it either. The absurdity of this entire issue astounds me and I really hope you just drop the entire thing and find another soapbox to try and stand on. Reene (リニ) 03:49, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to see that you too are concerned about personal attacks on people's integrity. Sincerely, I apologize for offending you. However, I will not drop this entire thing. If it's really not that important to you, then perhaps you should drop it. Note, however, that you have not addressed the question I posed in my last post. Since you seem to know quite a bit about policies here, perhaps you could enlighten me. If not, then, oh well...

I want to mention though, that I've read a bit on wikiquette...the first thing I read was: "Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit." I believe that this whole issue became complicated b/c some people's behavior wasn't in line with "assuming good faith." The edit that I made was done in good faith. It is not false. I have been accused of lying and you, Reene, stated "more than likely, if the user that brought up this issue IS in fact one of the people in question, he saw the success that Neopets had, got upset at himself for not taking a more active role, and is seeking to elbow in on a bit of that fame." You couldn't possibly know my reasons for bringing up this issue. The comment you made was *not* very nice. And, again, it is not accurate. And, again, my edits were done in Good Faith, which *is* in line with policy.

- Thomas :|


"Assume good faith" is not a hard-line policy when it comes to vandals and trolls. Your edits and attitude were and are completely in line with such individuals, particularly the fact that you reverted no less than eight times even though it had become clear that multiple editors objected to your changes. The fact that you repeatedly broke policy- first as an anonymous user and then as a registered user- makes the actions of myself and other users justified. And mind, what I said was mere speculation on the nature of the edits, whereas you unilaterally stated that I was "narrow-minded" while also suggesting I have some kind of "ulterior motive" for keeping the article NPOV and factually correct/verifiable. Reene (リニ) 06:00, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


Okay, let's see if I've got this straight: it's *not* okay to say something like "you are a troll", but it is okay to say "your edits and attitudes are in line with such individuals." Your comments are works of art, they are. ;)

And who is it that determines which policies are hard-line and which are not? Is it you; do you determine these based on their usefulness for your argument?

I *still* see no comment from you regarding my question 2 posts ago.

- Thomas :|

Mr. Deaton-
Some relevant policies are at Wikipedia:Check your facts, Wikipedia:Verifiability,Wikipedia:Cite sources, and Wikipedia:Don't create articles about yourself. (The last one includes some comments that are particularly relevant and do represent the general feeling around here. Note that this is a consensus-based system.)
If what you are saying is true—and I can't prove that it isn't—then I am truly sorry that you have been cut out, but Wikipedia is not the place to set the record strait. You are basically trying to change the public record. If you are not getting the credit you deserve, then you should be taking this up with the folks at Neopets, with newspapers, with your local news station, with your lawyer, or on your own site or blog.
If we can get confirmation from an authoritative source (other than yourself—the benefits to you if this should be verified make you a biased source, and there's no getting around that—we don't know you and don't know if your word is to be trusted) or if this becomes a big enough issue to be notable in and of itself, then we can include the information in the article. (The fact that an issue is being discussed on a Wikipedia article's talk page is not particularly notable. If it were being discussed by dozens of Neopets fansites and the Neopets site published an official statement, then it would be notable.)
The "no original research" policy is not as relevant as Wikipedia is not a soapbox. See especially #6 under the articles section.
My suggestion is that you spend some time editing articles that have nothing to do with Neopets. Your obvious ability to write coherent English would be an asset to most articles. ;) Aside from making a gesture of good faith, you will get to know the sentiments of the Wikipedia community, you will learn how policies and procedures tend to translate into real-life practices, and you will be accomplishing something useful while we wait to hear back from Neopets legal. :)
-[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(Tip: Sign your posts with ~~~~ so we know who said what!)


Thanks, Aranel, for the constructive comments. I'll go ahead and check out some other areas here at Wikipedia. :)

- Thomas Evianhat 05:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Requesting Comment: Thomas Deaton?

Summary

Evianhat claims they are Thomas Deaton, a long-lost co-founder of the Neopets website. Thomas Deaton is mentioned nowhere on the site itself and a Google search yields only one hit. User says their name was mentioned in a Flash years ago and that a letter to Neopets' legal department would reveal the truth. User claims others are being POV and biased in the removal of his name from the article and says he is merely adding what he knows as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. User has violated the Three revert rule in an attempt to keep his name on the article. Three other users have disagreed with the changes and have reverted them. The issue is at a stalemate. Should this user be allowed to put his name on the article as a co-founder of Neopets?

Arguments

Thomas Deaton (User:EvianHat) claims they are one of two other founders of Neopets besides Adam Powell and Donna Williams. These two long-lost founders are mentioned nowhere on the Neopets site and a google search for "Thomas Deaton" +Neopets turns up only one hit. This user offers no proof to back up his claims save for saying that a Flash animation that was once displayed on the Neopets website five years ago (and has long since been removed) displayed his name as one of the co-founders. This is not only impossible to prove, but I have been a user of the Neopets site since less than 5 months after its initial launch and recall no such Flash animation. I do not feel adding Thomas Deaton's (or the mysterious fourth founder's) name to the list of co-founders is good for the article for these reasons. This is unprovable and of a highly dubious nature. I would also like to point out the Wikipedia policy Cite your sources. User is attempting to unfairly shift the burden of proof from himself onto other users. Reene (リニ) 03:05, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, how about if we do this: We temporarily take down the part about me and Adam Garner for a few days. In the meantime, Reene, someone such as yourself can send an email to neopets' legal department. Ask them if Thomas Deaton and Adam Garner were founders of the neopets.com web-site and then wait for their reply. If they confirm my claims, then we add the part back in about me and Adam G. However, if they do not confirm my claims, then I will work with them and my attorneys to get some sort of verifiable document to you regarding this issue.

If, however, no one attempts to contact neopets regarding my claim, then we put my additions back in.

Does that sound fair?

- Thomas :)

Please use this section to succintly argue your side of the issue and nothing else. Reene (リニ) 03:00, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Reene - I get the feeling that you aren't really looking for the truth here. Why would you respond in such a manner to what appears to me to be a reasonable resolution to this issue? - Thomas

Arguments for Thomas's addition to the article

awaiting email response from neopets' legal department, verifying my claims - thomas.

Here's a link to a page regarding the beginning of neopets. http://wizardmansion.com/wizardpages/evianhat/neopets.html

Also, here's an independent reference: http://www.cybren.com/team_deaton.html

Arguments against Thomas's addition to the article

  • There is no proof whatsoever offered to this date which suggests that Thomas or the fourth founder ever existed and/or were part of the Neopets project. As such, there is no justification for adding either to the article. One cannot cite a lack of facts. The burden lies on one who wishes to add the disputed fact, not on those who dispute it. - Vague Rant 04:34, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • The thing is, every website that mentions Thomas seems to have been created by, well...Thomas himself. We need an outside source to really verify this. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 06:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I asked Thomas (via email) to create the website himself. That way, we can make a note of his claims and use an external source. I think it works well: I've already told him that this source isn't authoritative and we won't be treating it as such. We just have to mention it and move along, until we get confirmation from a company that doesn't seem terribly cooperative. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • They aren't, really. I've been playing for about 5 years and never once have they answered an email I've sent them =P [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 23:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Well then. Now that I have two links to information, I'll put them in myself in a way that will try to make everyone happy (famous last words!). - Ta bu shi da yu 07:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • One of the websites was written by Thomas himself and the other is a website that lists him as staff (therefore he likely has moderate control over the content). Neither of these are credible sources! Reene (リニ) 07:43, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
            • So we note that it is a claim by the author. We don't have to say they are credible sources. We just have to mention them. I'm going to write the info up on it. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

E-mailing Neopets

This is a very reasonable suggestion, and I have e-mailed their legal department asking about the truth of Mr. Deaton's claims and the availability of records which might confirm or disprove that claim. —No-One Jones (m) 03:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, No-One Jones. - Thomas

Keep in mind that if they don't get back to you in a week, they aren't getting back to you at all (don't know how much experience with Neopets you have). This is a pretty far-fetched claim after all. Reene (リニ) 04:30, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

don't know how much experience with Neopets you have—None whatsoever. A week isn't too long to wait, and in the meantime perhaps some other source will turn up. —No-One Jones (m) 04:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I just had a thought. Their T&C page lists a phone number. I'll contact them there during office hours tomorrow. Would anybody object? Reene (リニ) 04:35, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
My only objection to that would is, phone conversations are harder to verify than e-mails. It might help to inquire about public documents that would confirm or deny the contested claim, I suppose; their legal staff might know something. (I've already asked the same question in my e-mail, but of course there's no guarantee that they'll respond, and a phone call would probably be quicker in any case.) —No-One Jones (m) 04:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A phone call is no less verifyable than an email. Both are equally forgable. Though I assure you I would not do such a thing. Reene (リニ) 05:05, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Funny, that's what Thomas said about his involvement with NeoPets... - Ta bu shi da yu 01:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't believe anyone needs or wants to resort to forgery. (I, for one, didn't even know what Neopets was before I stumbled across this on RFC.) I just think verifying e-mail is easier than verifying phone calls, since it's easier to request a copy of an e-mail than it is to request a search through recordings of phone calls—if such recordings even exist. —No-One Jones (m) 05:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I called them. Rang about a dozen times before I got an answering machine that said the memory was full. I might try faxing them, but I don't expect much else to happen. Reene (リニ) 01:17, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

sigh

Thomas, if you're reading this, please provide some more concrete evidence. I was evidently wrong about our discussion before. Please don't add the material until we can get some more verifiable data. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure thing, Ta bu shi da yu. Thanks for the heads-up. :)

- Thomas Evianhat 05:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thomas Deaton - an update.

I have to confess I'm a complete newbie when it comes to Wikipedia. People here have mentioned conforming to rules and etiquette while posting. With that in mind, I apologise if I offend anyone or get something wrong.

I will, however, confirm that Thomas Deaton does exist, I have met him and he was indeed the third person behind the original Neopets concept. I know this because I am the previously mentioned 'mysterious fourth person' who was involved in setting up the website. I've read through Thomas' points above and they are (roughly) all true - especially the part about me being a 'very nice guy'.

There's not a huge amount of proof I can post here that will confirm what I'm saying - I have legal documents that would but for obvious reasons I'm not going to post them here. However - and please, prepare to be excited - I do have a copy of the Flash file that's been mentioned that was made by me in late '99 to promote Neopets - it's still in my personal portfolio. I've posted a copy on my personal web space here if you'd like to have a look. You'll also notice it mentions a guy called Alex Skeith, a very close friend of mine and creator of some of the first few Neopets and, yes, you guessed right, the inspiration for the Neopet known as a 'Skeith'. My account on Neopets it's also still active if you'd like to do a user lookup. My username is "ads" and it does indeed say I joined in November 1999, roughly the same time as Neopets first started.

Once again, I apologise if any of the above post breaks any rules or guidelines, I just wanted to add my comments. It's also a little strange discovering a web page talking about your past. I would like to add that I'm unsure whether a site like this is entireley suitable for discussing the ownership issues of a company or property - information that is probably best in most cases kept behind closed doors. However, having said that, I feel a duty to back up Thomas' claims about the very beginning of Neopets, which, as I've mentioned above, are accurate. --Thegarner 19:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It appears that there is a legal document that Thomas Deaton was one of the founders of Neopets. I am in correspondence with the user. I hope to get some more info and make a note of his involvement with Neopets soon. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:24, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, a legal document is no better proof. And that is indeed the original flash from the site. Well, that convinces me. I'd say the information could stand to be re-added to the article now. →Reene✎ 01:45, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well...I'm willing to believe it. I've seen the flash, seen the account name. You can't mess with the details on your lookup, and I distinctly remember (without ever having seen) the flash as being called "The Neopets Cometh". So...yeah, I withdraw all objections. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 01:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK so, why isn't it in the article then? (i must say reading all this has been better than any episode of law and order, and i'm glad to see the guy (who i did NOT believe for a SECOND) turned out to be telling the truth.) If we're all in consensus now...

Well, for one, I assume we're waiting on TBSDY to let us know what his correspondence with this user is producing. I would very much like to include a cite for this in the article, as this definitely falls under the category of "things that need to be cited". I'll nag TBSDY on IRC to get on the ball. →Reene✉ 03:14, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Is one appropriate or necessary? An anon added one to the article and I've reverted that change for now. For those that don't know, "Jelly World" is supposed to be a hidden world on the Neopets site. →Reene✏ 15:00, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

[199.71.141.254]: Hello. This is the IP address that added that link. Actually, this IP address belongs to a public high school in Canada. Apparently, one of my fellow students made that change (it's not too difficult to guess who, there's only one Neopets player here =)). I really apologize on behalf of her actions; she probably is new to Wikipedia. Please, do not block this IP address, as many of the students here use Wikipedia for true research, education, and occasionally contribution. I'll have a talk with her. See you, and thanks!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neopets&oldid=9574281"