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)

"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)

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)

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)

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.

• Official Neopets Homepage
• Guide to Making Neopoints
• Pink Poogle Toy
• Nothing But Neopets
• Soup Faerie
• NeoNonsense
• Neopets Hive
• Darkest Faerie Lair
• In-Depth Battlepedia
• NeoHelpers
• NeoItems

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)

I removed the following link to fan sites:

• Guide to making Neopoints
• NeoHelpers
• Neopets Hive
• NeoClours

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:

• Nothing But Neopets
• NeoItems (the only source of complete item info)
• Neoholic.com
• Pink Poogle Toy
• The Neopian Commentary
• Neocolours (the only source of complete color/paintbrush info)
• NeoNonsense (a much better and better-known site for newcomers) --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:48, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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?

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

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)

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)