Quintessence Schism

Wow! I wrote this article as a college project. The sources needed to be impeccable, and they were at the time of writing. Also I have no association with Brody Condon, and actually I'm not a fan. All comments, all opinions, all editorializing came directly from published sources. The sources available in this field are few, and most present only a positive view of the material because the art form is so new, so the article was undeniably positive - but they weren't my words they were the words of many others.

I'm going to sit and consider what to do next. I watched a fellow classmate go through a mindless battle for weeks with another Wiki editor whose goal was purely to further their own list of hits rather then actually add material in a positive way to the site. I found it was impossible to win when fighting with non-contributors, so I'm not sure what I'll do next.

FYI, the artist's own words describing his pieces are probably the single most valuable source of information on an artist you can find. They were also referenced and clearly shown to be the artist's own words. If you consider this spam then please delete your home page on Wikipedia since this too would then be spam.

For those of you interested in Brody Condon, I guess you have to turn to Google (hint also try the New York Times, one of my weak references).

But just to make things absolutely clear, this was not spam, was well researched, was well referenced, was college reviewed and peer reviewed, before it was ever uploaded here. Then it got edited a year later and pretty much all that research work is gone. But I guess Keithbob knows better. Yep, I must be spammer.

Quintessence Schism (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This Wiki editor could possibly be a spammer. His only contributions are to an article that shamlessly plugs a video game creator Brody Condon. --Kbob (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)