Hi guys,
I just seen this on the wikipedia, I think its very important to keep the content in their.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JMonkey_Engine
Wikipedia is really going down the toilet with all those people with nothing better to do putting deletion notices on everything all day long (eg. http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/10/unwanted-new-articles-in-wikipedia/ )
If someone with a wikipedia account wants to make an updated wiki page, they can put that message on the discussion page and remove the notice (possibly with a link back to this topic).
All it needs is some citation to be put in, according to the deletion notice. Probably refers to the stuff about Bang Howdy using jME, NCSoft hiring etc without any links. And quite frankly that changelog really doesn't belong in there.
I notice that Xith was also targetted by the same guy, but Ogre wasn't, etc. Not sure what the difference is though. Maybe the single References entry they have at the end? I'll see about signing up to contribute here.
Well, those notices are as easily removed as put on there, at least (if it's not done by an admin).
No worries, I removed it. 
llama thanks for sharing this nice article.
Its gone now. darkfrog is super :D.
those notices are as easily removed as put on there
That makes really wondering about the quality of their contents. I used to believe most of the stuff in their :/
Well, the first phase of a deletion can be removed by any registered user, but someone can take the next step and request a vote for deletion of an article which is not quite so easily killed off.
They actually reverted your delete DF. I've added more external references to hopefully alleviate their concerns. Actually though, if you look at the history of the original guy who deleted the article, he went through and marked a large handful of Java engines all on the same day. Weird.
Yes, I know…jSeamless was one of them. 
Maybe he had a personal grudge
I think if there were a way to link to NCSoft pages to support the claims of hiring devs (I know it sounds ridiculous, but it is being claimed in the article).
It's also on the NCsoft wikipedia entry. We could link back to our personal blogs or the jmonkeyengine site, but I don't really see a company posting news about hiring devs.
The Wikipedia:Notability - Wikipedia page (the reason that moved that guy to delete the article) says at the beginning:
This page is considered a notability guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
So, that guy is a little too arrogant, if he decided that jME article on Wikipedia is not enough notable.
Moreover this fact moved me to read other things related to jME history and the JSeamless little talk on Wikipedia. So, I read about Notability and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion and I concluded some things: 1) the guys who proposed those articles for deletion are (or is) unable to understand wikipedia rules; 2) that guys are also presumptuous; 3) Wikipedia disappointed me: some or the rules are really stupid rules accordingly to the mission claimed by Wikipedia itself, that is to be a free enciclopedia. This the link pointed under the title of the main page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia: there they say
An encyclopedia, or (traditionally) encyclopædia, is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.
jME is at least a part of a branch of knowledge. Consider that in a printed encyclopedia that I bought there are articles on arts, cinema and single films or authors. For example Blade Runner, Star Wars, 2001 Space Odyssey have reserved articles in that encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is based on Hyper Text (HTTP, ...) and then should be more than a printed encyclopedia and wider and should be more detailed (if not we can turn back an restart to buy printed encyclopedias). Else, if Wikipedia does not respect this HTTP principles, it actually fails its mission.
Many web sites do not respect HTTP principles, but Wikipedia, one of the wider networks around the internet, should not...
This is my personal opinion as a Web Designer/Developer and "web evangelist" for years.
Or let’s keep it in gaming terms.
Like any big MMORPG, especially the ones that become popular, you’ll eventually get players that without breaking the rules (often even using the rules to their advantage) still manage to ruin everyone else’s fun, and more importantly, participation.
What wikipedia needs to realise is they have a Griefer problem.
I quote you, llama, for the most part. But most of this
kill stealing, player killing, spamming, team killing (or team wounding), door or path blocking, ninja looting, spawn camping, and corpse camping
Are not to be considered griefing attitude, in my opinion, but the consequence of a weak (or erroneous) game play system. In fact in a poor game play system (for example World of Warcraft, just to cite the most famous ;) ) victims are not able to react to griefers actions, simply because the game system does not permit them to do anything to react. And then discourage further griefing actions.
I make an example: the griefer join a party to complete a quest. The team ask him to return the favor, helping them to complete another quest, just after the completion of the current one. At the end of the first quest the griefer leave the party and do not help them to finish the second quest. The griefer got something, the party lost their time having to find another mate. Moreover they are in great disappointment because the griefer got something in exchange of nothing. And that is not honest.
Ironically they cannot do anything to take at least their revenge. And this is the difference with a real world where you can have, at least, chance to do something.
The point is that griefers, thiefs, killers have always existed in the world and now also in games (internet, ...), but in the middle age if someone have done that and the victim have been strong enough, the griefer would have probably been dead...
Anyway, Wikipedia, in my opinion, not only suffers of a problem of griefers (that is a severe problem, because in a game can be acceptable but in a knowledge network is not good) but also has badly conceived rules.
I guess that that's why everyone wants to make their own MMOG
You'll always have the problem with people doing bad things within the rules, and while you can try locking it down with more rules, having too much rules is a problem on it own (and that's ASIDE from the fact that more rules means there's more oppertunity to exploit them).
eg. I don't see how you could ever do something about kill stealing, without deluding the concept of what a "kill" is. You can stop counting them so it matters less, or you can make some construct where you can only fight 1 on 1, or work some kind of construct into the game where you can "share" kills, etc etc. but in the end you're taking someone's fun away who was never a griefer. You can say they should go play another game then, but that means you're gonna send people away everytime you make a rule, which probably you didn't want to make if it wasn't for griefers.
In the end, some things just come down to how deal with him with them as a community.
Sadly wikipedia's answer these days seems to be to accept this type of griefing into their culture, by making them admins, giving them more tools to do so etc. Maybe that's as counterreaction to the other griefers that play outside of the "rules" of wikipedia and do not want to participate (talking about those who do vandalizing, spamming, etc.)
llama said:
You'll always have the problem with people doing bad things within the rules, and while you can try locking it down with more rules, having too much rules is a problem on it own (and that's ASIDE from the fact that more rules means there's more oppertunity to exploit them).
I was not saying to add more rules, but to add more options... so that victims can defend their self. In a MMORPG more options would give a plus, to open new perspectives of game play.
In the Wikipedia, unfortunatelly, the things are quite different. Its aim is not to encourage chaos but to force order... so...