Talk:RPGnet/Archive 1

Theory threads?
RPG.net has been remarkably free of theory threads as of late; I suspect that they were added at the behest of a disgruntled user. I'm removing that sentence from the article.

-Darren MacLennan


 * In the future, Darren MacLennan needs to refrain from editing an article for a website of which he is an admin of. This is a conflict of interest.  Further, I'm pretty confident that his edit(s) (however long ago they may have been) represent a violation of WP:NOR


 * No staff, admin or moderator of RPG.net should be involved in ANY edits to this article.

Article cleanup?
At 03:38 on 4 Apr 2005, Almafeta made an edit stating “Removing damage done by 141.140.129.173” However comparing older versions of the article shows that 141.140.129.173 (an IP at macalester.edu) is the original author (09:57, 16 Feb 2005) even though Almafeta accuses them of doing “damage.”  The deletes in question were actually performed by 207.164.198.149 (an IP at trytel.com) less than four hours after 141.140.129.173 wrote them. Regardless, the entire “memes” section is woefully short of the factual standards generally held to articles on wikipedia. -- Kralizec! 17:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Severely edited, removing the inappropriate 'memes' section - --JamesCat 08:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You know, that's very interesting. I'm assuming most contributors to this article have been posters or former posters, and as far as I know I am the only regular posting from that domain. I may have been the one to do this alleged "damage", if I failed to log in - but in any case, the difference between the two versions is entirely in a paragraph that I (or someone else at Macalester; I don't remember) added, and the "fixing" consisted of turning it into a "memes" section. But what puzzles me is that I know for certain that I didn't create the article in the first place; I remember being startled to learn that the site even rated a Wikipedia entry. teucer 05:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice edit on the rpgnet rep, Platypus--fair enough to me.

What's up with ShannonA logging in and arbitrarily deleting the mention of both the IntelliTEXT ads ,lack of a search function, and theory threads? With the excpetion of the theory bit, all are fact. The theory bit is widely carped about on several different forums. I understand RPGnet is his site, but that doesn't mean he gets to ignore facts. 83.33.170.198 07:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think ShannonA is simply trying to remove the NNPOV language. Consider the text that's been removed and restored (emphasis mine): "In addition, DESPITE having a large membership fund drive and banner ads, RPGnet has DECIDED TO ALLOW IntelliText link ads to PEPPER their forums, a move WIDELY CRITICIZED IN SOME CORNERS." Read that out loud with emphasis on the ALL CAPS words and I think you'll hear the fact that it's decidedly non-neutral and dripping with sarcasm and venom. It could be written in a more neutral light. Not to mention, what does a membership drive and banner ads have to do with whether or not Text ads are appropriate? RPGNet isn't a non-profit organization last time I checked; they're free to make money however they like. The mere presence of text ads hardly warrants such language (if a mention at all) since said ads are to be found all over the Internet at this point, and just because some users don't like them (I dislike them myself) doesn't mean they should be called out as anathema. They're just ads; you can find the same ads on any number of popular websites. Not to mention, the text ads don't just appear in the RPGNet forums, but elswhere on the website, so it's inaccurate to boot. In short, I don't think this is about ignoring facts. It's about one guy defending his work and other people attacking it, rather than everyone cooperating and trying to create a neutral, factual article. The paragraph in question needs rewriting, if it needs to be there at all, and others within the article probably need the same treatment. Aeonite 07:23, 18 May 2006 (PST)


 * Entirely the case, Aenoite, thanks. For any others, please read the NPOV article if you're confused. Wikipedia is at heart an information source, not a bulletin board, and that should be reflected in the content no matter what your personal opinion on a subject. The other problem with some of the recent comments is that they violate verifiability. If you're using phrases like "some people", "some say", or "in some corners", that's not attributable fact, it's hearsay, and that violates one of the core tenets of Wikipedia. Aeonite's edit dramatically improves the NPOV for these topics. ShannonA 11:15, 18 May 2006 (PST)

Almafeta
Thank you for your input. I will edit accordingly. However, would it not be safe to indicate that RPG.net is known for leaning to the left. That is a fact. I lurk there quite often and see a very left-wing slant to both the moderation and politics of the site.

BTW; would you be interested in adding an entry for RPGHost.org. I plan on starting a page here about that site, to help build the wikipedia database.

Oh, for the record, if you are indeed the Almafeta who was just banned from RPG.net, I think you got dissed. Hope its only a temp ban. :) -Tetragrammaton 21:50, 19 May 2005


 * The moderation is slightly biased in favor of the right wing, but only slightly so. F'rex, compare the people who have been banned.  If you don't count spammers and troublemakers, you get (liberals):  me, 007Bistromath, Curt, Samurai, Contracycle; (conservatives): Rob Lowry, Pawsplay, AGFP, Mahubrahad, Vegasthroat.  Pretty evenly balanced.
 * And no, it's not a temp ban. PatrickY tempbanned me earlier this year without reason, declaring it was his opinion that it would make the boards a better place; when StephenLS permabanned me on a falsehood, the newly-adminified PatrickY upheld it with as much justification as the tempban.  Ah, c'est la vie.  The forum administrators only speak for themselves, only have power on the forums, and represent neither the ownership nor the users of RPGnet; I still may use the wiki, and of course I've got more reviews coming along.
 * By the way, you'll want to sign your entries. Use four tildes, one right after the other, like this: ~  Almafeta 22:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry to hear that Almafeta. I am only an occationaly user of RPG.net (user name Elrick of Melbourne).  I like to read the articles and forums.  Seems to me the place has gone a wee bit mad.  Anyway, hope I can be of help here at Wiki.  I will do my best. :)
 * And thank you for the sig information. Tetragrammaton 04:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I would not describe myself as a conservative. I am a left-leaning civil libertarian. Pawsplay (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this information acceptable
Added the rules and guidelines link. Also expanded the info on membership and users.

Considering how many people I have seen banned over the last couple years, I really feel that a warning to conservatives (like poor old Mahu) and libertarians, is in order. -Tetragrammaton 22:12, 19 May 2005

More politics...
I was on RPG.net for two years (before being permabanned IMO unjustly for non-political reasons), and there is a popular political slant too the forums. A majority of posters lean to the left and social conservatives especially might be pretty unpopular.

That said no paticular political view is enforced by the moderaters and while a person with conservative views might be socially frozen out, he won't be banned simply for his views.--83.70.244.143 4 July 2005 13:25 (UTC)Ross N


 * The site doesn't have any bias in moderation policy when it comes to politics, but as a matter of forum culture Tangency is certainly rather left-leaning. It isn't enough so to prevent there from being a number of well-respected conservative posters, though. (And, of course, Tangency - which isn't really an integral part of the site, though without it the forums wouldn't have the community feeling that they do - is the only place where politics are noticeable at all, unless you see Exalted as a political issue.) teucer 05:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, re being 'leftist': the Usual Suspects?  Almafeta 11:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * They're a prety small minority among the regular posters, especially with ChildofHaqim and Mahu having been banned. Also, ISTR Rob Lowry sporting a Republicans for Kerry sig, though I may be misremembering. teucer 17:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think that was me. :o   --Kralizec! 17:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah. I know I'm used to thinking of Lowry as an old-school conservative rather than a GWB-style conservative, though. teucer 05:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's important to note that this respect for "conservative posters" is very much targeted towards fiscal conservatives rather than social conservatives. It's a cold place for the latter.

Granted I'm hardly unbiased as I was permabanned after breaking a rule that close scrutiny of the posted rules fails to turn up, so make of that what you will... RossN (still bitter)


 * Um, IIRC you were banned for a long series of posts that were remarkably unkind to other users, some of which crossed the line into outright trolling. The only reason your ban was at all surprising was that it was based on a harsher interpretation of the "no personal attacks" rule than had been used previously - part of a trend toward stricter interpretations of the rules that was not at all confined to social conservatives. --teucer 04:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I dispute that. I never personally attacked anyone, and rather seem to recall I was usually the target of personal attacks rather than the other way around. Certainly seemed more tolerance of rule breaches on those occasions... RossN

rpg.net people
What does everyone think about an "rpg.net" people section? There's already a mention of the fact that a lot of industry professionals post there, but a list of actual names might be nice; more to the point, it would be cool to have a list of people who posted there before being offered professional work; Scott Lynch is the first example that comes to mind, and Al Bruno (to a lesser extent) might also fit; I'm sure that on a site of rpg.net's size, you could compile a fairly decent-sized list. Stilgar135 20:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

RPG.net Darlings
In the section discussing the "RPG.net Darlings" phenomenon, I edited the section which claimed that Exalted is disproportionately popular compared to games with "far superior sales" such as D&D, GURPS and Rifts; in fact, of those only D&D can reliably be said to outsell Exalted. King of Old School 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this page correctly named?
I want to raise the question why this article is called RPG.NET when all the info in the article, and info on http://www.rpg.net/ calls the website discussed RPGnet. I would suggest that the article RPG.NET should be moved to RPGnet and a redirect set vice versa to how it is now. - Waza 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Store
The section on the store should be removed or edited; though RPGnet maintains affiliate links with RPGshop, there is no longer a branded storefront.

Membership
The site claims to have "over 30,000 unique users each week" and backs that claim using a cite that can only be accessed by paying a fee. However, logging in at any given time shows around 1,100 users (counting both registered and non-registered). Is the discrepancy profit motivated?

-agoodbadhabit
 * Your WP:OR of a single point in time does not contradict a total over a longer time. Your hypothesis of why you think it means something is WP:POV. But the cited ref does not support the claim either. DMacks (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Numbers are well-documented by third-party Quantcast which does not charge a fee to view numbers:

http://www.quantcast.com/rpg.net

20k a day, 97k a week, 307k a month. The 30k a week number is actually quite low. You can also get info on just the forums by looking at Quantcast's records for forum.rpg.net

66.159.220.52 (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

politcal leaning of site
In all fairness to people of conservative or Libertarian viewpoints, and to RPG.net, I think it wise to include some type of statement about the political atmosphere of the site. The site has a very liberal bias without question. Not sure how to go about stating this as a neutral fact. I tried to, hope it is acceptable. Any ideas, or suggestions? -Tetragrammaton 20:08, 19 May 2005


 * There is no 'bias,' at least when it comes to politics. There are other biases, to be sure, but political isn't one of them.  Putting that in the article is falsehood, not fact.  (By the way... 'liberal' as an adjective isn't capitalized.)  Almafeta 01:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree; there is an EXTREME left-leaning bias to the site. Apparently it's a requirement to be a Democrat to be a roleplayer I guess. -- 70.33.147.160 23:50, 5 November 2005


 * I agree with 70.33.147.160, Being someone with right leaning views and speaking them on Tangency is about the same as a rolling in ground beef and kicking a bear in the nuts, I guess that "Tolerance" is a Do as we say, Not as we do kind of thing... --Theredstarswl 20:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please... the people you're so caustically trumpeting as liberal hypocrits ("Do as we say, not as we do...") are your thirteen to seventeen demographic. Teenagers, upon discovering that yes indeed, the internet is for the most part (without a sysadmin's knowledge) anonymous, will snarl and snipe with all the gusto they'd like to be serving on their parents out of the painfully typical angst the age group carries.  The last two comments are amusing at least, in that they in an attempt to decry an act as they perpetrate it.  I'm so tired of hearing mouth-pieces talking about bias as if they'd had a single neutral or uncoloured opinion in their lifetime.  Go watch some "Fair and Balanced" Fox News.


 * Interesting comment at the end of that. Just further proves the bias that rpg.net has (but they're never going to admit it).  They "play safe" by very loose interpretations of the rules when banning right-wing members, but sometimes they haven't even done that!


 * RPGnet asolutely leans to the far-left. It is also biased towards discussion for a number of pet games, which are generally more protected from overt criticism than more mainstream titles.  Moderation is selective in the extreme, and tends to be enforced ont he same side as the moderator's and admin's personal beliefs.  If you're a Catholic, Republican, Libertarian, or any sort of even moderately conservative individual, keep in mind their standard percpetion of these things is about as tolerant and nuanced as that of a White Wolf RPG title. 131.48.240.20 19:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * With the caveat that I haven't visited the site in six months I'd say that's a bit extreme. RPGnet does have a bias towards the center-left/liberal position but is not so draconian as might be made out. A social conservative will find him or herself in a minority, and possibly unpopular if he or she is even slightly vocal but being socially conservative is not an automatic death sentence! A note is perhaps justified that the populus are liberal in outlook, but the mods are (generally) non-partisan, and most of the posters are fair minded. Ross Nolan 13:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Does "social conservative" mean "hating gay people" or what? 'Cause then, yes, that might be problem. Hate = bad.


 * RPG.net definitely has a political bias (at least on key parts of the forum like Tangency). I would say it is left leaning for sure. Especially from the point of view of American posters. And the mods seem adjudicate disputes along political lines. This is something commented on in many other forums. There is also a tendency to equate anything but the most socially liberal position possible as hateful or bigoted. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I support including mention of the political bias and RPG.net in the article. But I don't know what sources are going to be admissable. It is something anyone in the gaming community knows about. And it is debated constantly. Mostly it has to do with the Tangency forum and the mods seemingly heavy-handed issuing of bans. Just a note: someone is going through this and editing out recent attempts by a poster to continue this discussion. People should be able to discuss the article without having their positions edited out. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also if Sandy's soapbox is going to be admitted as a reliable source, then certainly we should be able to include something like therpg Pundit as a source demonstrating people out there do believe RPGnet has a liberal bias. I agree the article shouldn't take sides. But it should at least acknowledge two sides exist here. The article shouldn't say "rpg.net has a liberal bias" or "rpg.net does not have a liberal bias", but it could say "some gamers have accused RPG.net of having a liberal bias". And this would be very accurate. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * H'OK. User 98.110.177.20 has asked me to expand on why the comments here have been removed and portions of the article are being removed.  There are two policies (policies and not guidelines) that are being broken by some recent edits.  I'll explain both below and try to give some example to help foster a better understanding.


 * 1 - WP:OR - This is a Wikipedia policy regarding original research. In a nut shell, that means that Wikipedia doesn't publish original thought.  This means that opinions which are not published by reliable sources have no place on Wikipedia.
 * Example - Barack Obama & George W. Bush's article both include criticism about them or something they've done. The articles will give the opinion then support the opinion with references from reliable sources (CNN, Fox, NBC, WSJ, NYT, etc.).  If we were to include a section about the political bias of this website, we'd have to provide a reference about the opinion.  Who are we going to reference? Bob from Nebraska's FB page?  User 142.36.447.1?  What would Obama's or Bush's article (or any article for that matter) look like if we included everyone's opinion who wanted to give it?  Therefore, WP only includes opinions that have been previously published in reliable sources.
 * What this means - This means that, unless any of you above stating your opinion about the bias of the website have been published or can find realiable sources that back up your opinion, your opinion just doesn't belong in the article.
 * 2 - WP:SOAPBOX & WP:FORUM - These are two sections of a single policy (WP:NOT).  In a nut shell, it says that, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not contain all data or expression found elsewhere on the Internet."  This applies to all of Wikipedia and not just articles.  More specifically, WP:FORUM states that, "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article."  From what I'm seeing, you're not discussing how to improve the article, just your opinions about the subject of the article.  I won't remove the talk pages comments anymore if you really feel that you need to discuss it here but again, know that it won't make it into the article without reliable sources.  WP:SOAPBOX is basically the same thing (points 2 and 3 apply most).  It says that, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages."  It can't get any cleared than that.  Again, please don't be offended, but your opinion about the subject doesn't belong here on the talk page.
 * Example - If WP allowed every talk page to turn into a forum, WP would have more content on the talk pages than in mainspace. Content not only strains the resources of WP's contributors, it costs money and having numerous and massive discussion on WP isn't cost effective.
 * What this means - Simply and blunty, your opinion about the subject doesn't belong here unless you have reliable sources to back up your opinion (in which case, you're really just pushing their opinion but that's OK).

I hope I've helped users understand a little more about Wikipedia and I hope that you guys feel like sticking around and improving the project. Feel free to ask questions here and I'll do my best to answer them. Ol Yeller '''Talktome 19:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeller: You deleted content from the discussion page. Content that supported including material about perceptions of political bias at RPG.net. I agree we shouldn't add something to the article that takes a position on this subjective issue, but they raise a good point. Many people believe rpgnet suffers from bias, and this has been posted in places like THERPGSITE and by its owner RPGpundit. Most of the sources sited in this article are basically essays posted online. How are they any different from posts by the pundit accusing rpgnet of bias? We are talking about an online forum, you aren't going to find a new york times article describing the fact that lots of posters think RPGnet is liberally biased, but everyone in the online gaming community knows that opinion is out there.


 * At the very least we should be able to discuss this on the discussion page without you deleting content here. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As a starting note, please make sure you add a colon before your comments.  Check out the code.  It helps distinguish whose writing what so we don't get a huge list of text.
 * You said that I deleted, "Content that supported including material about perceptions of political bias at RPG.net". Where's the reliable source?  Please go read WP:RS so that you know what that means because it makes sense but the title alone won't give you enough information.  If there's no reliable source discussed, you're soapboxing and presenting original research which have no place on WP.  See the portion that says that the policy, "... applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages."
 * Again, to be blunt, no, you're not able to discuss your personal opinions of the subject on the talk page per WP:FORUM. Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 19:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is just one essay by rpgpundit leveling the accusation of liberal bias at RPGnet:http://rpgpundit.xanga.com/734710196/item/98.110.177.20 (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a reliable source. I'm taking a great deal of time to explain these policies to you.  All I ask is that you go read WP:RS which you obviously haven't done yet.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 19:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To explain more, is any Xanga website reliable? Is WP going to start including the opinion of every tumblr, xanga, wordpress, and FB page?  Again, go read WP:RS to better understand what a reliable source is.   Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 19:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither is sally's soapbox then. And on inspection most of the article isn't sourced either, and most of the sources are little more than blog entries or forum essays. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Who is Sally and where is she being used as a reference? Do you have a reply to any of my other comments? Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 19:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right, she's not a reliable sources either. I'll remove the content. Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 19:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What about all the other unsourced parts of the article?98.110.177.20 (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

In the case of the RPGpundit, he is a prominent enough online gaming personality that we may want to consider including it. He has established his own rpg forum (THERPGSITE), and been one of the major critics of RPG.net as being too liberal. The article I suggested as a source refers to the disciplining of one of their own mods. Someone who later discussed the controversy at therpgsite. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * After you pointed out that the article includes a source that isn't reliable, I checked out the rest of them and see that none can be used to establish notability of the subject per WP:N. In my opinion, RPGpundit isn't reliable but it's moot as there isn't even significant proof that the subject should be included in the project.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 19:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability of which subject? The RPGNET or RPGPundit. Both are notable in the gaming community. I don't think that is under dispute here. The problem is, this is a niche area. So any sources on relevant trends in the gaming community aren't going to be standard sources relied upon by wikipedia. In fact, I would say if you rely soley on reputable news sources and academic papers for information on table top gaming, you will end up with a less accurate image of the community than if you rely on established RPG blogs and rpg news sources (generally not regarded as reputable sources by wiki guidlines). Which leaves us with a major issue. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Both. Their notability isn't in question; their reliability is.  In your opinion, they may be reliable and in mine, they're far from it (it is under dispute here).  This is a niche area but WP isn't for niche subjects; it's for subjects that are defined as notable under WP:N and just saying that it's so not-popular to the readers of WP but somehow notable isn't a great argument.  If we rely on reliable sources to establish notability like we're supposed to per WP:N, not only will we not get a good view, we'll see that the subject isn't notable.  Finally, you're right, we do have a major issue.  The issue is that the subject isn't notable which is why I nominated the article for a deletion discussion.
 * Any discussion regarding the notability of this subject should be kept to the AfD. I won't be replying here anymore regarding the notability as there's no reason to.  Ultimately, you're going to have to help other editors understand why RPGnet is notable under WP:N. Keep in mind that AfDs are not a vote and any arguments whould be backed up with references to pertinent Wikipedia guidelines and policies.  Just saying, "I think it's notable", "the references are reliable in to the gaming community", and/or "I think we should keep this article" will be summarily ignored.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 22:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually plenty of wiki articles are niche subjects. You can probably find plenty of articles on knitting or yatze. Dungeons and Dragons and role playing games are similar. Your problem is you are stopping with google search. There are plenty of gaming trade magazines, gaming news magazines, gaming culture magazines, that are in print, but aren't going to have searchable articles on google. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a good example of your misunderstanding of WP:N. Knitting and Yahtzee are notable and have references to prove such.  Do a Google News search on D&D and you'll see the difference with RPGnet.  You keep talking about other sources that talk about RPGnet but never show any.  Do you have any or are we going to keep talking about phantom articles published by notable sources that may or may not exist?  This would be where WP:V (verifiability) comes in.
 * This is as simple as I can put it. Find references to show that the subject is notable and present them in the AfD.  If you can't, the article will probably be deleted.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 23:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You are the one proposing deletion. And you use a single google news search to determine if its notable. There are plenty of print sources available, where RPGnet is likely to appear: kobold quarterly, game trader, knights of the dinner table....

Also stop please acting like a mod. You aren't one. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Notability isn't established. To stay, it has to be established per WP:N which I'm guessing you still haven't read.  Produce article, not sources.  You can say that CNN and Fox covered RPGnet but it means nothing without verifiable evidence (per WP:V).  As for acting like a mod, I don't even know what that means to act like one.
 * Are you going to provide actual articles or just continue to say that articles exist or attack me? Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 23:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I never said notability was established. I said lack of notability hasn't been established. And you can't establish that from a single google search. PS please address me politely in the future. I do not feel you are addressing me with respect. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I respect you. I think you're misunderstanding me.  As for notability or lack of non-notability, notability has to be proved for the article to be on WP.  Read the article I've linked and you'll see.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 23:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and all I am saying is you need to give people more time to look for resources. You also need to give people more time to weigh in. So far it is just you and me I am confident reliable sources will be found. Most of the contributors to this page probably don't even know its up for deletion. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's why deletion discussions run seven days: to give time for the frequent editors to log in and see the AfD notice—not to mention that the act of posting it at AfD puts it in front of more eyes, including people who will go out looking for sources in an effort to save the article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 98.110.177.20, I'm sorry if you feel I've been condescending, a bully, or overzealous, as you put it. That was never my intention.  My intent was to explain WP policy to you quickly and bluntly in a way that was easy to understand, quickly.  If you feel that my intent was to make you feel anything but welcome to edit here, I'm sorry.  As for the ANI you started about be bullying you, I'm sure it will take care of itself. If you'd like to discuss the notability of the article further, I suggest doing it in the AfD.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 01:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems like it should be safe to say it has a left leaning bias at this point. The forums official policy is you will be banned for supporting Trump or the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They classify ICE as a hate group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:A380:25F0:F8D6:F441:4C36:82AB (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Nope, Wikipedia will never allow any liberal bias to be mentioned anywhere! 80.235.236.18 (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)