Talk:Rule of Rose/Archive 1

Blank Story Section

The story section is presently blank, probably because someone wanted to clean it up some. God knows the game is hard to parse.

I am going to add a small blurb as a placeholder so that the story section is not just floating there. -- [[User::vincenttoups|Vincent Toups]] 3:47, 16 Jan 2006 (ET)

PS can anyone tell me how to get my signature to appear like everyone elses? I just got an account and I would appreciate it greatly.

Hi Vincent, if you want to sign your posts then just add four tildes (~) after you've finished typing. I'd created a story and gameplay heading as they were missing from the article - it then consisted mainly of character sections and controversy/impact.

I was however stumped at how to start, I've not had access to my PS2 for weeks and I'm not a writer. However, your contributions managed to get my brain started and I've since written the gameplay section and incorporated your own text within it. The story section is going to be a real pain in the backside, as you've pointed out, I'm not sure how much material I'm going to be able to produce. Anyhow, welcome to Wikipedia, hope you enjoy yourself whilst you contribute. QuagmireDog 18:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

US Release false?

I thought I just read something stating that Sony of America is going to prevent the release in the US, but I can't find the article now... Zarggg 02:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060608-7018.html -- Ianiceboy 06:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

SCE will not be publishing the game due to the potential for underage erotic inference, Atlus, however, will be releasing the game in the US on September 12 of this year. --NEMT 04:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler Warnings needed

Isn't revealing that Wendy is the Princess in the Red Crayon Aristocracy section a bit of a spoiler? After all, unlike the other girls of the RCA, Wendy's title is never mentioned on the official site. There's reason for that, isn't there?

Have no Fear, I've fixed it. and you should sign your name. 74.117.157.185 22:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Do U like or dislike the edits I made?

This was my first time actually contributing to anything in Wiki, so I'm just worried that maybe the edits were unnessesary. Either way, pleaz tell me what U thought of them. If I messed smt up, soz.

• It's kinda hard to give feedback if you don't sign your comments. --Mika1h 15:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Characters Unimportant?

There used to be a short character section on this page that was seemingly removed because it was "unimportant." The section wasn't very long, it was informative, and it's not uncommon for a video game article to have a brief character section. I'm just curious about about the reasoning for the removal.

65.160.144.38 14:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Lovely

I wondered about this issue too, but I thought that perhaps the reasoning behind it was to remove English information until the English version had come out, in case there were discrepancies between translation, but as that is not the case any longer I see no reason not to include a character section, along with anything else like gameplay ect. Amyeis 15:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

From confusing character list to encyclopedia article

I'm trying to brush the article up into a wikipedia entry, can you help?

The article's headings are now more or less as they should be.

The game itself has three 'realities' in effect, as well as interpretation of these events. Managing these is going to be an ongoing task and potential pitfall during the article's continued evolution.

Tips for contributors:

• Encyclopedia articles are designed for those with little or no knowledge of the subject and surrounding subjects. Everything has to be spelled-out and unambiguous.
• The story section should be a brief outline. Many facets of the game are ambiguous. If it's open to interpretation, don't put it in - without adequate sourcing this is original research and can't be used. If you're unfamiliar with referencing (like me) (I was but now I'm OK, though I know it's tough if you're unfamiliar with referencing), please bring any good links you find here to the talk page.
• The article was mainly composed of lengthy 'character' subheadings which also combined different aspects of the story. Many of these did not match my play-through of RoR. Where did information like 'Gregory was trained like a dog, Martha contacted the police about it several times' etc. etc. come from? If anyone can point out where these 'aftermath' details came from I'd be extremely grateful.

Things to do:

• Alter character descriptions so they match the kind of layout and data given in the character lists of well established game articles.
• Story needs expanding - bare bones might be good for a start? (It's going to be difficult, I know).

I'll keep adding to the list (and striking through completed items). Discussion about this would be appreciated, I'm a tweaker rather than a writer, but so many survival horror articles need to be fixed I'm having a go. QuagmireDog 04:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't think we need too much detail on the characters and how they attack and so on. A rough plot outline would do. The article should bring together a brief description, followed by outside sources' discussion of the game. I mean, those who have not played the game know this stuff already, and for those who haven't, it's just a big list of spoilers they should avoid. Compare to the Featured Article-grade page on MGS3. Sockatume 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Food for thought. I've been unable to get online till literally a few minutes ago, but rest assured the comparison was eye-opening. When I've had the chance to absorb more details from VG FAs I'll make some changes. Thanks QuagmireDog 13:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Fansite link and external links

Fansite link - what's going on with this guys? Seems to be an awful lot of edit-warring in-out cut/rename etc.

There should be a fansite link, particularly if it's an established site (this one seems to be), so why is it being removed?

It should explain itself without promotional/vanity language - it has a name, that name should be used. It is a fansite and it is a forum, therefore labelling it as such is correct. Whether it's 'the biggest in existence' is irrelevant. It's the one used on one of the most traffic-intensive websites in the world, at the bottom of the subject it directly relates to. Nothing anyone can write will big it up more, in a few words or in several paragraphs - please leave it as a simple statement, it's a forum and a fansite.

Could everyone with an interest please state it? If there's a point then it should be made and discussed, if not it's just vandalism and will be dealt with accordingly.

I've removed the GameFAQs link, the fansite should cover game tips (as well as various other resources) and this is a general encyclopedia, not a gamer's site. If any gamer can find this entry then they can find a walkthrough elsewhere.

The four links I've listed here are not lost or thrown out, I will use each one to cite the article (the interviews can be a start of the development section). QuagmireDog 19:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the link SHOULD be in the page. However, it should not have the "Biggest fansite in existance" or whatever thing. The first time I deleted that, I accidentally deleted the link too. Now, the thing is that the link should be put as "Rule of rose fansite and forum" (and its name, if it has one), but the author of the site should not promote it in a stupid way. However, he/she keeps doing that. We delete the "Biggest fansite in existance" part, and he/she adds it again. It's getting annoying.

Thanks.

Thanks for your input, interference of that nature doesn't help the fansite's cause and creates more work -.-. If a fan or even the webmaster of that site feels the need to beef up the wording they should bear in mind i) Wikipedia likes claims to be backed up and neutrality, ii) they have a solid gold link, whenever someone looks up RoR on this encyclopedia they are pointed to Rule of the Rose, you'd struggle to buy that kind of coverage and iii) if contributors here decide the link should stay, it will be despite any insistence that RotR is 'the biggest in existence', not because of. Just leave it to us to label it in the house style and accept it for the boon it is.QuagmireDog 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"if contributors here decide the link should stay" . I personally in fact don't like it being here, but I don't certainly know if wikipedia allows it or not. I've seen fan pages being removed from articles, so if that's what it normally happens, I'd like it to happen here too (not to say that many times I click the link, geocities tells me that it exceeded its bandwidth, so it's not even a really IMPORTANT fansite imo).

Thanks for all your work in reverting the edits, I appreciate your help and interest here.

Noted, I've noticed the bandwidth restrictions and resulting message from the site too, often accompanied by a raised eyebrow. I don't feel strongly that the link must stay, more that it would cause no harm or irritation if the links remain tidy and the spam stops. As a fansite, it can give visitors different material than they would gain by looking at the cited sources. Once the spam does stop, the article becomes more stable etc., then if a lot of contributors were unhappy with the inclusion of the link then that'd change my own view of it. In the meantime I'd like to try and get more citations for the article and keep making gradual improvements - hopefully this will please most people, though any further discussion is most welcome. QuagmireDog 20:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, this is an outrage. Neither one of them have even created accounts. You are ignoring everything we have said, and instead making accusations and posting warnings.

So trying to smooth things over is an 'outrage' now? Neither of them have created an account.. have you? Who is 'we'? And how have I ignored everything you've said when you haven't communicated here before? What accusations, what warnings?

What I've done here is tried to clear the external links to a reasonable level and to leave a neutral impression of Rule of the Rose (the fansite), which is what this encyclopedia is built on, hoping that the link would be left alone and could then stay. The wording of the fansite's only effect was whether or not it fitted in with what is expected on Wikipedia, either a positive or negative thing. I editted it to be in-line with what is expected and positive, others have re-editted it back to be spammy and negative. I asked that well enough be left alone, so the fansite link could stay if others agreed, might as well have tried wringing blood from a stone. Then I sought help, either through that or not, moderators have become aware of what's happening here and are dealing with it. The present discussions are entirely self-inflicted by those who spammed the link instead of letting the link simply state its existence. So don't come crying to me now that the link is deleted, next time try discussing things with those trying to help instead of taking the water. QuagmireDog 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Fight for the Fansite!

According to some admins here, the Rule of the Rose fansite is not "important" enough to be allowed on the RoR page, even though it follows all the Wiki guidelines. It has even been incorrecly called a "Personal" site, even though it is not. It is one of only two RoR fansites out there, and the largest at that. The site has the most in-depth analysis of the characters, story, and many other things, not to mention the largest discussion conmmunity for the game. If you would like to demand the link be restored, please post here with your reasons!— 67.163.193.239 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

How's it important? The keyword here is a "fansite." That doesn't mean it's an official site of the game, it means it's a site that you created. I don't see how a fansite is remotely relevant to the article, aside from the fact that the site is centered around the game. I highly doubt that it has "the most in-depth analysis" of the game. Shadow1 (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite a simple calculation here. Item 1 of "links normally to be avoided" states: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. Your fansite "does not provide a unique resource". Here's a suggestion: if you want to help improve this encyclopedia article, add content, not just a link. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Shadow, maybe you should look at it before making that deduction, because indeed it does. I'm not sure what you mean by "unique resource", but it has tons of info not on here. I would never add content to this page beyond a link, just to have someone delete it and try to block me.67.163.193.239 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Rule of the Rose is more helpful than the official RoR website, if you ask me. That site has character bios, very detailed summaries, and even a forum to discuss theories on. Wikipedia is how I found the link to the site, so I think they should keep the link up. 65.143.72.28 18:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

...and your sole contribution to our encyclopedia is to lobby for this link... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

For your information, I have contributed to this site in the past, only to have what I wrote deleted or editted by someone. After awhile, people tend to get sick of this happening. But you are getting off-topic. To comment on what the person above said, it really is. Have you seen the official site? I mean seriously, the little booklet that came with the game had more info than that, and I'm not even joking. It's got like five tiny character bios and a little prologue, and that's about it for information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.193.239 (talk • contribs).

That comment wasn't directed at you - notice it was threaded underneath that other IP's comment, and points to his/her contributions. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when does a "fansite" automatically get the boot because of an encyclopedia's criteria? It is not JUST a site for fans to go to, but it's a place for critical discussion based on the game, sharing your thoughts, opinions, what have you to say on there, just like ANY other forum. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't fans go to forums and the main site to read up on things because it's of their interest? How is a fansite any different? I wanted a place to discuss the game, and IMDB, which has the biggest and best discussion board all over the net, doesn't even have Rule of Rose in it's database. I had to be given a link from a fellow IMDBer, who is the administrater of the biggest and best Rule of Rose fansite in question because I COULDN'T find it. I looked all over the net for some kind of forum or fansite, I even looked on here at one point and you had nothing that suited my needs. If I had never been given the link to the forum I would have NEVER found it on my own because it seems to be hidden or displaced across the net. If I had no place to talk about the game, as so many people have the same problem, WHO are we going to discuss it with? Our dogs? Not only is it a place for discussion, but there are people there that know the game as well as the back of their hand and can HELP people with an issue in the game if they ever have trouble. It helps talking with a real person instead of spending so much time trying to find the solution to your problem in a poorly typed up walkthrough.24.140.44.139 19:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Also this IP's one and only edit. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, you have got a lot of nerve. What, a person cannot come here and voice their opinion without having made a million edits? It's really rude of you to single out these people. No one made them come here. They clearly care about the fansite and are here to argue their point to bring it back. I am really insulted by the little warning you added just because you can't take that people are taking my side and think the link should be allowed. You going to attack every single person who posts here in support of the link staying and completely ignore all the good points they bring up?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.193.239 (talk • contribs).

Use of such a banner is standard procedure when there is evidence of single purpose accounts. Please stay cool, ok? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

And now you are deleting my posts? I'm pretty sure that is against something. That does it, I am reporting you for harassment, and I hope those others do as well, because this is ridiculous.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.193.239 (talk • contribs).

Please calm down. I haven't deleted anything (to my knowledge). What are you talking about? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My post before that previous one was deleted, and I do not appreciate it. We came here to discuss the fansite and why it's link should not be deleted, but you just brush us aside and start deleting posts, labelling people, and claiming they were ordered to come here and told what to say.

First, please learn how to sign your comments with 4 tildes. Second, look at the page history - no one has deleted any comments. Maybe you're not seeing the one you put in the above section? Honestly, you need to take a break and calm down, perhaps disengage for a bit. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I will not calm down. The way you are treating me and them is ridiculous! We were trying to discuss the fansite seriously, when all of a sudden, you start ignoring what all the people who take my side say and start saying stuff about accounts they did not even create. Do you have any idea how rude this is? You are treating them as if they are nothing because they have not editted before.67.163.193.239 20:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down. We are not treating you badly or as if you're not important. Everyone on Wikipedia contributes with equal worth and weight. However, the evidence suggests that you may have asked others to come argue against the deletion, not to mention the title of this section. Let's cut out the conspiracy theories and focus on discussing the link in a calm and unbiased manner, instead of turning this article and its talkpage into a battleground. Shadow1 (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't call this being treated badly? And clearly Zim does not agree, since he's been ignoring our calm discussion points and simply pointing fingers. From what both of those people are saying, it is clear they have been to the fansite. Where they came from has nothing to do with what they are saying here-their opinions are their own.— 67.163.193.239 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Oh, are they? It would not be the first time you ask people to put in a wikipedia article something you want. Like the "Help Our Forum" topic you made yesterday. In any case, I'm not giving my opinion about the fansite itself. I wouldn't like it to be here, but I simply don't care much. If it's decided that it should be here, then I don't have a problem with it.— 190.64.77.137 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Um, how about getting back on topic? 65.143.72.28 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. Personally, I feel that for a game with little supporting information available, the addition of a fansite/forum doesn't hurt anyone, and it deserves a place due to its status as both a fansite *and* forum. I've been getting tired of the insistant addition of flavor text to the link, but other than that it is a highly valuable external link. DestradoZero 05:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to attempt to get this discussion back on track. 65.143.72.68, could you please state your reasons for wanting to include the link in a calm and collected manner? Shadow1 (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is one of only two RoR fansites out there, and the largest at that. The site has the most in-depth analysis of the characters, story, and many other things, not to mention the largest discussion conmmunity for the game.67.163.193.239 20:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As noted previously, you have a conflict of interest here. Note the external link policy states that "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked". (That's why, presumably, Shadow1 directed his/her query at a different IP than you). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So, If ask a completely random friend who has nothing to do with the site to post the link, it would be fine? I doubt that's true, since someone already did that, and it STILL got deleted.67.163.193.239 21:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

How can a Wikipedia reader be so sure that the information contained in your website is factual and can be trusted? Also, how can you be so sure that it's the largest and most in-depth? Shadow1 (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, how can anyone be sure the info on Wikipedia is entirely accurate? I've seen tons of articles with no citation, and anyone can edit anything on a whim. And how can you be so sure the information on my site is NOT accurate? Anyone who has played the game will know that it is.67.163.193.239 21:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before: Rule of the Rose is more helpful than the official RoR website, if you ask me. That site has character bios, very detailed summaries, and even a forum to discuss theories on. Wikipedia is how I found the link to the site, so I think they should keep the link up.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.143.72.28 (talk • contribs).

Of course, but note the "if you ask me." Imagine, for a moment, that you're a Wikipedia reader. You follow the link to the site, and try to find some guarantee that the information is factual, accurate, and unbiased. Does your site have any authority over the subject? Shadow1 (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who has played the game will know it is factual. The only things that are opinionated are the various theories people have submitted, which have not even been posted there yet.67.163.193.239 21:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys working together or something, because that screenshot, much like the other, looks NOTHING like the posts on that forum. I went there and checked it out. Shame on you both for trying to be decietful like that! And why have I got another block thread for spam links this time? I have not even added any more links!!!

Anyone who has played the game will know it is factual. — 190.64.66.86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Absurd. That is not the way to switch consensus. What about anyone who hasn't played the game? Or is it your assumption that no one would ever read the article who hasn't played the game? If the community decides that the link stays it will, a cursory glance and I would say it fails WP:EL. IvoShandor 16:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing absured about that. It is near impossible to find websites that would state all the info as fact. If that were the requirements for every site linked on Wikipedia, there would be hardly any. Even the IGN link you guys have up lists false information about the game.67.163.193.239 03:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

Proof of off-wiki canvassing at the forums in order to garner support for 67.163.193.239's position: forum link (you'll need to register), and a screenshot. This is unacceptable. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice try to frame me there. One, that link does not lead anywhere but the login page, and two, that screen shot's been editted in photoshop. Anyone who has even been to my forum could tell you that. That post is completely fabricated.

And even if it weren't, there is nothing wrong with pointing people to wikipedia to defend a link to a fansite they all love. Either way, the screenshot is clearly a fake.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.193.239 (talk • contribs).

Unbelievable. I swear as an administrator that the screenshot was in no way altered, and anyone can go ahead and create an account and check that link. And I never said it was you - just that some off-wiki canvassing has occurred to support your position. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a member there and have been for a long time. I've never seen that post before, and upon checking, I do not see it now. There is no way that screenshot can be authentic, as it looks NOTHING like the type used on the forum by the admin. And for someone who complains about people spamming, you sure seem more than ready to go sending spammers to Jennifer's forum.

I am not surprised that the announcement has now been deleted (which is why I took the screenshot). And now, also not surprisingly, I have been blocked from the forum screenshot. This is ridiculous. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You were blocked for attempted spamming?>_> Gotta love the irony, though. The announcement was not deleted, for it never existed. If it had, I would have seen it, as I'm ALWAYS on the forum. And again, that screenshot looks nothing like the posts Jennifer makes.

3 Things

1- The person in the link, IS in fact the one talking here (the one with a 67.163.193.239 IP), I know because I'm a member there.

2- I don't know exactly if this person (67.163.193.239) thinks people here are stupid or what, but did you just post as another person? (I'm talking about the last post). You say "as it looks NOTHING like the type used on the forum by the admin", but it was you (the admin) who said that (look at the history)

3- I saw that thread, you just have to be registered to see it. Also, you claimed that people post their own opinion, but that doesn't look like the case:

"Where they came from has nothing to do with what they are saying here-their opinions are their own." (you said this here)

"And leave a message stating why you think the link should be kept" (Rule of rose forum)

"Please edit in the following: (link)" Clock Tower forum

You're not asking people to go to the wikipedia page and post what they think, you're asking people to post what you want them to post. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.64.66.86 (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm not the admin, and that fake post in the screenshot does not even say that. No one can force people to do anything. And besides, you're a troll who attacks the forums-your word means nothing.67.163.193.239 01:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

^^ I don't want to get throttled for posting after another person because they didn't include a signature like what happened last time. Anyways, please, tell me why "canvassing" is inadmissible and so critical about something so petty as this? Since when is it against the law to allow other people to come in and "fight" with you over a matter such as this? And why would this fansite not be featured on the rule of rose wikipedia site eventhough it follows all the guidelines? Just because it's a fanbased site? Aren't all official sites created to attract fans? How is this any different? It has solid fact, not opinion about anything critical of the game's storyline. Otherwise, it's in a form of a "theory" by other fans, which would be in a different section. That's the thing about psychological video games such as this, there are many voids to fill that the creators allow the fans to conjure up. How will fans be able to post it if there is no forum featured here that has the place to do that? We're surely not going to post on the official RoR site because it doesn't have a forum or any area of discussion or insight learning.24.140.44.139 01:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Read this. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

She brings up a good point though. Most people don't even read these discussion pages. It's pretty hard to debate if no one is biased.67.163.193.239 02:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you zim, but I already read it and it still doesn't make any sense to me. How will people know that our site isn't being advertised if nobody tells us? And when you think about it, you yourself have canvassed the site regarding this situation. I didn't know about, to be honest, mainly because I didn't even know there was a problem regarding it. I'm never on wikipedia for Rule of Rose because it doesn't tell me anything that I don't already know about the game. What I didn't know and have obtained it in my knowledge I learned from the site. Since when are "fans" incompetent to know anything about a game? 24.140.44.139 01:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

67.163.193.239, I already told you I'm not who you think I am. You don't want to believe me, don't believe me.

If I hadn't already proved you were lying enough times. About the other thing where you say that you're not the admin. First of all, are you the admin of the Clock Tower fansite? Before you say "No I'm Not", click http://s163.photobucket.com/albums/t311/damnedsword/?action=view&current=ct.jpg (source, your clock tower forum). There "The admin" says that SHE had a lot of discussion about this link trying to stay, and that's obviously you, 67.163.193.239, because before you, nobody else had put that "Largest forum in existence" thing.

So, you obviously are the admin of the clock tower forum. Now, here, http://s163.photobucket.com/albums/t311/damnedsword/?action=view&current=ror.jpg, the admin of that forum (you, as I've already proven), promotes the rule of rose forum.

Before you say "That doesn't mean I'm the admin", I have to show you this: http://s163.photobucket.com/albums/t311/damnedsword/?action=view&current=rorown.jpg, where the admin (you, as I've already proven), say that you own Rule Of The Rose.

Is this enough to prove you are the admin or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.64.66.86 (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I assume the link in question is the forum? Firstly, forums' posts are non-attributable so if I say something in a thread, that cannot be used as a source. Secondly, a fansite link should be avoided. Third, can you assert that your forum is notable? Fourth, if it is notable, does it make the article any more encyclopedic? That said, it is almost impossible to prove canvassing on a forum because anyone with the ability can hide stuff in a forum. I would tend to avoid putting this link in the article, because I am not sure if any content is available on the site, and the fact that I need to register does not make this link any more suitable. Ah, never mind, the 3RR report told me a bit more. I would not put that link in in any case.

(edit conflict) It does not matter who is canvassing - but there might well be canvassing happening anyway. x42bn6 Talk 02:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys working together or something, because that screenshot, much like the other, looks NOTHING like the posts on that forum. I went there and checked it out. Shame on you both for trying to be decietful like that! And why have I got another block warning for spam links this time? I have not even added any more links!!!

I'm not taking sides in this argument. I don't feel that that site should be on the page because it is declared as a fansite, it has conflict of interest and no notability justified. x42bn6 Talk 02:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention it requires log in to access. IvoShandor 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The forum does require a log in, yes, but the last time I checked, the Rule of Rose fansite does not require logging in.

Also, the person with the 67 IP can't respond for awhile because some admin blocked her for a "spam linking" offense that she already got a warning for a while ago.03:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Man, I almost die laughing reading you. Like if any doubts that everyone supporting the idea of the fansite are friends of her, and that she's the admin, would remain. In any case, what I'm talking about is that you did 7 edits in less than half an hour. What's the difference between them?; IN THE FIRST EDIT YOU ADMIT KNOWING THE ADMIN, AND THAT SHE'S THE PERSON WITH THE 67 IP, but in the last edit you don't claim knowing her or she being the admin (in fact, in the second edit you happen to claim that she's a member). XD. Just for those who don't wanna look at it for themselves, here's a comparison between your first edit and your last (seventh) edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARule_of_Rose&diff=116436813&oldid=116433538 (pay special attention to where this user claims being a friend of the admin (the person with 67.etc IP), and how he/she deletes that later)

I think we should stop harping on alleged control over a forum that should not be put into an article - doesn't that sound sensible? Canvassing is not an easy thing to prove if it is off Wikipedia, and if the links are unsuitable, it should stop there. x42bn6 Talk 13:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.64.95.214 (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

"Canvassing is not an easy thing to prove if it is off Wikipedia" Really? I never found it this easy. And I've been editing in wikipedia for some time, and participated in some cases like this one (in fact, I tend to like this things). In any case, I actually agree with you in that it/I should stop here. In fact, I was going to stop when I made my first point that the admin was actually 67.(etc), but continued when the admin kept denying it despite there are clear facts that show that. In any case, I'll stop talking about this and I'll let you talk about the link itself. 190.64.81.124 14:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright. The reason it is hard to prove is that if the information was not cached by the Internet Archive, the Wayback Machine or by a search engine (which, if the forum's contents are hidden by a login screen), and the fact that threads in a forum are not difficult to hide. I'll keep this page under watch, though. x42bn6 Talk 19:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

IP 190, you need to stop. You are not here to talk about the fansite or whether the link to it should be kept-you are here on a witchunt to get revenge for something the admin did to you. It's clear in how obsessively you are studying people's posts and how you are altering things to make it seem like I'm the admin. We don't need that kind of harassment when we are trying to have a calm discussion. In the end, my identity is completely irrelevant and not the topic of this discussion.

And there is no "canvasing" going on, though I agree with the point made by another user about people being allowed to come and defend a link they often visit and possibly even found through Wikipedia. Now, let's get back to the discussion on the fansite link.67.163.193.239 20:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. If the admin is canvassing, he/she/it should be held accountable. I don't understand the animosity towards a link, though, that provides quite a bit of informatin not available here or virtually anywhere else. As far as notability, that is highly subjective. From what I can see, it is notable because it's virtually the ONLY Rule of Rose forum. Either way, this is quite a bit of conflict for something that can be solved with a simple, basic link. Basic description, 'nuff said. DestradoZero 06:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The link in question was NOT to the forum-it was to the accompanying fansite. And there was no canvassing, just accusations with clearly falsified evidence.67.163.193.239 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

apparent 3rr vio

Reported both IPs for 3rr violations here. - Denny 02:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break #2

Perhaps the most reasonable logic for why a Geocities-based webpage should not be added as an external link is the limited bandwidth inherent with these free web page accounts. Consider, please, that the very site in question is now down because it "has temporarily exceeded its data transfer limit" screenshot. Such links have little place in an encyclopedia article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it seems to work for me... But that shouldn't be a reason, to me. Theoretically, IGN or GameSpot could exceed their bandwidth capacities or something similar and then it would fall under this category. The only reason I put it is because they declare it as a fansite and this does not make things notable nor easily neutral. x42bn6 Talk 02:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Odd. Perhaps they're blocking random/georgraphic IPs to save bandwidth (added screenshot above). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

First; I did not think that still happened since user 67.163.193.239 said in ZimZalaBim's talk page; "and we fixed the bandwith problem ages ago.". Second; I think it is a reason why it could not be allowed. Tahoma, there's a big difference in a page that exceeds its bandwidth after many many GBs, and geocities, page which has an extremely small bandwidth limit for those who don't pay. In any case, I don't know if this is the most important reason why it should be allowed, despite as of now, I still think it should not be allowed. As I said before, however, if the rest of the people think the link should stay, I don't have a problem with it being here. I don't care that much.

Btw, I'm having the same problem ZimZalaBim is having, it can be some sort of region blocking, but I wouldn't be sure.

What would you have it called, if not a fansite? It was a site made by a fan. What's wrong with that? And the bandwith limit is staggering because currently Jennifer is doing some editting to clean up a few spelling errors. When the site is being edited, it often cannot be accsessed.

You still say "Jennifer" like if someone believed that is not you. But just in case someone still thinks you're not the admin (and the one telling people to edit the wikipedia article) (despite what I managed to prove through screenshots); check here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ZimZalaBim#This_is_REALLY_beginning_to_get_irritating...) . There you say exactly "You're wrong and the discussion page proves it. And Rule of Rose is NOT Iron Maiden. It only has two fansites. Mine is the most extensive and the best out there." (the IP is directly below the msg). You see that "Mine"? That is YOU referring to YOUR page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.64.66.86 (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Is this how desperate you are? Editting my words? I am not Jennifer. She knows about this though, because we told her earlier today. I can't stop you from believing what you want, though.

I'm pretty sure I edited your words, yeah; http://s163.photobucket.com/albums/t311/damnedsword/?action=view&current=wiki.jpg (that part can be found in the end of the "This is really beginning to get irritating" part of ZimZalaBim's talk page. Before you tell me that I edited what you said in the article, check the article history. By the way, it's funny how you deleted your topics about asking for help in both your forums, luckily, we got screenshots of them before you did that.

You realize no one is going to believe your nonsense, right? I don't know why you are so set on attacking my forum, but it is pathetic. No one is gonna fall for those screenshots-they've got to be two of the WORST photoshop edits I've ever seen!67.163.193.239 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha, so, what you're saying is that: the 3 screenshots I posted are photoshops, the screenshot zimzalabim posted is a photoshop, Zimzalabim was never banned on your rule of rose forum, there was no thread asking for support on your rule of rose forum (despite mentioned screenshot), there was no thread asking for support on your clock tower forum (despite mentioned screenshot), the link I gave doesn't actually have any part where you say the website is yours (despite it DOES say it-unless you remove it like you removed the threads of your forums), and that basically you're not the admin of the forum despite I've already proven you really are about 3 times. Well, that makes sense. In any case, as I said, anyone can go to ZimZalaBim's page and realize you really said RotR was your forum.

Now, I don't think there's any doubt on whether you're the admin or not (I hope there's no doubt ¬¬), so maybe you can go on talking about the page itself.

Edit: Sorry to talk about this again, just that all my evidence doesn't seem to be enough for someone to stop lying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shadow1#So . "It may be mine, but even the official site belongs to someone. A personal site is just info about a person, a blog, resume, or something for a business, which mine is not. And many things written on Wikipedia could be considered people's opinions. The stuff on my fansite was not only the work of me but a great deal of the members of my Rule of Rose forum. It is only an opinion when stated so, which is rarely. 67.163.193.239 18:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)" . But I guess you're not the administrator (or even worse, I just changed your words (which can be found on the link))

You're obsessed-stop it. Anyone can edit someone else's words here, which is why I am not too fond of this place. And yes, those screenshots are an obvious photoshop-anyone could tell that. I already mentioned Zim got banned. Jennifer said it was because of his spamming. We showed her this page and the lengths he was going to to slander her fansite and block her, including telling people to register at her forum only to look for a post that does not exist. If that's not a good reason to ban someone, then I don't know what is. Regardless of what you claim, I'm not Jennifer. Ikary, this is really getting old. I know you are bitter about being banned, but this is hardly the way to solve your problem. You and your friends need to grow up, move on, and leave Jennifer and her forums alone.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.193.239 (talk • contribs).

1- As I said, I won't discuss the fact of my identity. I know who I am.

2- Everyone can look at that edit. Everyone can look at the history. Say what you want, I know you're the admin, and everyone with half at least half a brain would know it.

3- If you're going to add something, be sure to add it in the right place. My last edits weren't here (despite they should've been, in fact :P) (User fixed her mistake)

Please sign your comments via ~~~~, it's hurting my brain. That said, I don't feel it matters whether canvassing has occurred or what is on that forum, who is in charge of it, etc. - I still feel it fails WP:EL and if ShadowBot continues to catch it, then that works for me. x42bn6 Talk 14:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if comments are edited, it is still possible to recover the original version and see who added them. And I can prove that 67.163.193 added the quote on Shadow1's talk page: this is the diff. So either you are Jennifer, or you say that her forums are yours. I'm inclined to believe that it's the former. I am against this link as well; we cannot use Geocities sites for references. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Geocities link flagged as spam

Moot point anyway, looks like the bot Shadowbot (talk · contribs) is now flagging it as spam... - Denny 04:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, saw that earlier.

Left over from when the article was being spammed. Shadow1 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG Assessment

• Too much of a game guide. Limit characters section to 3 characters maximum. Delete the others, and include an external link to a proper game guide website for the other characters if possible.

(GameSpot or another respected one, NOT a fansite.)

• Expand upon the story section, but keep it limited to about 2 paragraphs. Currently a stub.
• The lead section is incoherent. Read WP:LS, and do a complete rewrite.

Remained start, rated low. I also didn't like the fact that the one who requested assessment gave his own opinion in the edit summary of the request. Assessment is a third-opinion procedure, and I was slightly biased now. Luckily, the requester was completely wrong (see above), which makes it less of a problem. Just something to remember.

--User:Krator (t c) 11:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when do site like Gamespot have good character guides?>_>;67.163.193.239 20:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

FIGHTING ASIDE (sheesh), 67 has a point when it comes to this game. If there were a good enough plot guide/walkthrough, I wouldn't have such a problem with the deletion of the fansite/forum link. However, even GameFAQs' guides on this game are woefully inadequate in regards to plot/storyline information. If someone were to add the story to the article, again, I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with the removal. DestradoZero 06:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Even with the story added, I doubt this article could cover it more or better than the website. And besides, the game is so much more than just the story. There's a lot of character details and symbolism and other such things that can only be found on the website.67.163.193.239 17:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Geocities link

• For what it's worth, the Geocities site in question appears to be a pretty comprehensive fansite and would be of obvious interest to those looking for information about the game. I'm pretty sure that even a feature-quality encyclopedia article would never be so detailed, and I sympathize with User:67.163.193.239, who has been shouted down more by brute force than by adherence to WP policy which still, I believe, demands the assumption of good faith and for article content to be produced by consensus. --Dystopos 13:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.^^ The fansite really is quite informative. People like to argue that information wrote down by fans can't be proven, but neither can, more often than not, the info on most of the sites you DO have listed. We've already proven on the forum that some of the information featured on the official site is false.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.193.239 (talk • contribs)

External links are subject to different standards WP:EL than article content WP:A and references WP:CITE. It would not be proper to cite the forum to dispute claims made by verifiable sources (though the sources used to form those claims may be acceptable if they are published and not original research WP:NOR.) It may or may not be useful to list the site as an external link. My opinion is that it seems to be appropriate, but others may disagree. That's why we're discussing. Note that contributions to talk pages should be signed by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. --Dystopos 21:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IMO, the link is borderline, but probably ok. I think the main issue to take away here, especially for User:67.163.193.239, is a lesson not to persistantly insert links (all of your last 50 article edits were merely to insert fansite or forum links), many in violation of WP:3RR (which seems to be why s/he was blocked, not link spamming per se). Happy editing! Not a dog 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest taking up issues with user behavior on the user talk page and reserving this space for discussion of whether the link is appropriate for the article? --Dystopos 21:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry - i'll post it there. Not a dog 21:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: This link is bad. The site doesn't appear to be complete (some links on the right don't work), Geocities has obscene amounts of advertising on it, the user appears to be in charge of that site, leading to WP:COI. The user seems hell-bent on adding it as well, which doesn't bode well. x42bn6 Talk 10:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your evaluation of the site. But again, let's please distinguish any behavioral issues from the issue at hand to try to reach a clear consensus. I think we'll make more progress that way. --Dystopos 13:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Due to the layout of the site, all the links had to be done at once. The ones that are not finished are pretty much the uninformative things, such as the Gallery. And remember, as I stated, the site is in the middle of switching over to a new layout, which is why some things are not working, but this is only going to be brief. As Wikipedia requests, it is an informative site, and people have vouched for that here. There is not other place to get that much extensive info in the game.

As to why I'm trying so hard to add this link, it's because I feel cheated. When I added a link to a Clock Tower fansite, it was removed. I was told the reason why was because it was not even close to being finished and had no information. This site DOES have information, and IS practically complete, but now that same person removed it and came up with a whole new plethora of reasons, which makes it seem like a personal attack. Also, I know the fansite is informative, and people should not have to be cheated from getting to see it because of some bogus Wikipedia issues.67.163.193.239 19:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, let me suggest that we restrict the conversation here to the usefulness of the link under the WP:EL guideline and reserve discussions about user behavior to user talk pages. --Dystopos 19:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the link being there, and I've had to re-add it multiple times when others have hacked it out of the article. My problem with it is that someone feels the need to call it "The largest Rule of Rose fansite in the world". I'm not calling the user's behavior into question, only the additional unnecessary descriptive text regarding the website. A simple description of the website as a forum and fansite should more than suffice. DestradoZero 05:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing is ridiculous. There was no reason to single out a link to a clearly informative site and start all this. I've searched around Wiki and found hundreds of articles with fansite links. Why are these links not be treated the same? The link is informative. It being there is not hurting anybody, and it should be re-added.67.163.193.239 20:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

proposal

Allow me then to formally propose that the link be re-created as an external link to a fan site with additional information about the game (and without unverified claims about its size or importance). --Dystopos 00:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support per WP:EL, "What should be linked", items 3 and 4. --Dystopos 00:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support' I'm not thrilled with the user's behavior trying to get this link added, but agree with Dystopos. Not a dog 15:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing position to Oppose based on IvoShandor and other's comments below. Not a dog 04:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What behaviour? I am not the one faking screenshots and resorting to personal attacks. I have made many good points, as have others, about why this link should be added, but these have all been ignored.67.163.193.239 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Let's please, in the interest of seeking consensus on this question, confine discussions about user behavior to user talk pages. --Dystopos 23:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support The website in question carries sound and systematic info. Since including this type of info is not supposed to be included in articles, it seems a perfect example of WP:EL "What should be linked" 3. As far as I could find out via google, there is no other similar site for this game. — Graf Bobby 04:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: No good reasons have been provided as to why this site would provide more information than if this article reached Featured status, it fails the very first criteria at WP:EL. IvoShandor 12:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong opposeWP:RS, per the External links policy, Link normally to be avoided and WP:COI--Hu12 07:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

commentary

There is no reason the site should not be linked, as it is informative. There are tons of other fansite linked to on Wikipedia, and yet none of them are being treated this way.67.163.193.239 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is rarely a good argument. --Not a dog 02:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why I've made all those other arguments throughout this entire area.67.163.193.239 03:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So, what's the decision here? Not a dog 21:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much interest in keeping this site, and besides, I just checked it, I get an error message from Yahoo: "The GeoCities web site you were trying to view has temporarily exceeded its data transfer limit. Please try again later." Not a dog 03:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of interest. Just look at all the people who said they thought the link should stay. And no site can stay up all the time, that only happens when a LOT of people look at it at the same time. That just proves how popular it is and that it should stay up. It's extremely informative, which is the main guideline for anything on Wikipedia. You guys are just nitpicking-looking for any reason to keep the link down. I mean, come on, you guys want a site with official confirmation that the information on it is factual? That's not even possible, and you know it. If you apply that to EVERY external link, well, then you won't HAVE any external links.67.163.193.239 05:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I hardly call 2 people 'very interested' and geocities goes down on a whim, not by how many people view it. and stop conspiracy-theorizing everything, your link is not staying up and these people are not out to get you. end. of. discussion69.47.50.205 11:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As the above person mentioned, stop trying to bring personal attacks here. You have nothing to do with this and know nothing about it. A lot more than two people have stood up for the links right to stay. I recognize that IP-you are one of the trolls who is out to ruin that site and the forum that goes with it. You are not the authority here and you have no idea what you are talking about in regards to geocities, the people here, and the links supporters.67.163.193.239 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, 3 editors have voiced some level of support for including the link and no one has "officially" opposed my proposal. This is not the place to carry on a personal dispute. --Dystopos 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that is because everyone who dared to support the link got attacked? This whole thing seems more like a personal attack than a fair discussion. There is no good reason why the link should not be allowed, and no one has yet to come up with one.67.163.193.239 20:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You acknowledged here that fan sites don't belong on Wikipedia, and you've been deleting them from other articles. Therefore, I assume you no longer agree that this fansite should be added here? Not a dog 21:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, can we PLEASE limit discussion here to the proposed link and move discussion about people's behavior to another page or off Wikipedia entirely? --Dystopos 21:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is about the proposed link. I'm trying to figure out this IP's current attitude about the appropriateness of this and other fansites, as it is relevant to our disucssion here. Not a dog 21:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, I get it, 67.163.193.239 has reacted poorly to having his or her contributions challenged. 67.163.193.239 has either expressed conflicting opinions or made bad edits in a sarcastic attempt to make a point. Fine. All we need to decide here is whether this site merits an external link under WP policy. If so, we'll put it up and point to this consensus whenever somebody comes along to pull it down. If not, we'll leave it off and point to this consensus whenever somebody tries to restore it. Getting bogged down in discussions of user behavior will not help us reach consensus. In my opinion. --Dystopos 21:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not reacted poorly. The fansite in question is extremely extensive and imformative, as links on Wikipedia are supposed to be. It is not a personal site. Other people have vouched for how informative it is and how they think it should be allowed, only to be attacked for not being long-time Wikipedia members. And no one has yet to provide a good reason for it not being allowed that is not completely ridiculous.67.163.193.239 22:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I heard you the first 50 times. I feel for you. I myself have fought against the same mindsets which have attacked you. Let me advise you that working to build consensus will be more effective than throwing out additional insults and accusations, even if they are justified. --Dystopos 22:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think the link should stay (and stop calling me a troll 67.163.193.239) while it is more informative than the site, most of the sections describing the game are a narrative. Most of the other parts of the site are fanworks as well, so I don't think it quite lives up to wiki standards. Not to mention the user's behavior through all of this. I just think it's more of a fansite than a reliable source of information.Obscure80 10:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Obscure, I've already reported you for your constant harassment on my talk page. You are just saying that because you ARE a troll, and you got banned from the forum that accompanies the fansite. You've been out to cause trouble for the admin(who created the site as well)ever since. Only the story section is done as a narrative, and that does not make it any less accurate. It was done so because it made it interesting and less confusing. There are also the exstensive characer summaries, the FAQs, the Theories, and a whole lot more.67.163.193.239 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that there's no problem with having the link. The site itself is a great source of information in a fandom when, quite frankly, ANYTHING about the game is hard to find. The site linked to isn't just some fansite, it provides extensive summaries, theories, ect. about the game. And like I said, the fanbase is so tiny, it's one of the best sources I've seen so far....75.45.88.81 20:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, Can't you guys just quite? How about leting both forums be up? So no one will be sad? ^^ ( My eng is bad, sorry XD)User: Suh 22:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.217.173.29 (talk • contribs).

The link is informative and should stay!! o.o User: SANDERA 23:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.217.29.147 (talk • contribs).

Stop calling me a troll 67.163.193.239, and stop trolling yourself. You harass me on your talk page, so I make a rebuttal. I just don't think the site is THAT informative and isn't informative enough to stay up on wikipedia Obscure80 21:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you STOP already?! We are trying to have a discussion here. And someone edited that person's post up there!67.163.193.239 22:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I AM having a discussion, and who edited who's post?Obscure80 22:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you are not-you are attacking again. And Suh's post was either editted or deleted.67.163.193.239 23:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How is stating my opinion attacking? and I didn't revert anyone's posts. Obscure80 23:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

These might be the "edited" posts you're referring to: first, 84.217.173.29 (talk · contribs) left this comment signing it as User: Suh, which does not exist. Then 84.217.29.147 (talk · contribs) erased that comment and left his own, similarly signing it as User: SANDERA , which does not exist. I reverted that 2nd comment (with an explanatory edit summary) as vandalism. Both probably could be removed as vandalism, as they are likely socks of each other (no other edits, similar error in leaving signature, similar IP) Not a dog 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You had no right to revert that person's post. They made a mistake in the original, thinking we were talking about forums and fixed it. You should return it to the way that person wanted it. I'll bet you only changed it because they said they thought the link should stay, which is horrible of you to do.67.163.193.239 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added it back, but if you know who these people are, tell them to create an account and not post with fake usernames. Not a dog 23:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And, once again, please look at my vote above - I supported the inclusion of the link. Please assume good faith. (I am trying to disengage, but just wanted to clear this up) Not a dog 23:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Sandera IS a member of 67.163.193.239's forum. (unless she took sandera's name and used it against her knowledge, I doubt it, but it's possible)Obscure80 00:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, it is not my forum. And for the record, Sandera is also a member of YOUR forum. Doesn't mean she is not allowed to post her thoughts on the link. Enough with the person attacks.67.163.193.239 01:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, allow me to say that as a supporter of the fansite, it's a really nice joint to go to and get information on Rule of Rose, I don't get what the big deal is about it being linked from Wikipedia, hell, I'd love it if the site actually had more people check it out. Maybe it'd convince some to actually buy the game and show support for the idea of a sequel? That wouldn't be a bad thing at all. Heck, I'd love to finally go through and beat the game myself, and this website only makes me want to do so even more. I say put it back up for crying out loud. 68.163.247.157 01:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If 67.163.193.239 isn't the admin of the forum, then why did she say she was in here?, for example (I say for example because I've proven you to be the admin of the site in different ways already).

Also, 68.163.247.157, you already said you wanted the site to be on the page, you know, here, where you declared being friends with the admin, and clearly said that she's the one with the 67.163.193.239 IP.

Now, getting back to the topic itself, I already said it more than once, I wouldn't put them here, I don't think they should be here at all, but I don't know... Whatever others decide I suppose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.64.83.176 (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Ikary, stop bringing up all those lies. It's off-topic. We are supposed to just be discussing the fansite here.67.163.193.239 02:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Call me whatever you want to call me, I already told you who I am ¬¬. How can I be lying? I mean, I gave you a link of one of your edits (something I can't manipulate since it's in wikipedia's history and says the date and the editor), and asked you to explain it. Now, can you explain it? (190.64.83.176 02:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

Unlike you, I am not going to get off-topic here. I'm also going to ignore your personal attacks on me. And I know you are Ikary-how else would you have his IP?67.163.193.239 03:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I told you about the IP thing, it has nothing to do with who I am. I could actually explain you a bit more about how I connect to the internet, but it'd be too offtopic, even for me. If you want to believe I'm a banned member of your forum, believe it, I already told you.

About the other thing, that's a pathetic way to evade my question, but whatever. If you like it, we can discuss it in your talk page, I mean, that's what it is for, isn't it?(190.64.83.176 03:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

Whatever. Stop getting off-topic. And it is still not my forum.67.163.193.239 04:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone please close and archive this mess. Not a dog 15:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No one is closing anything. We are trying to discuss the link, but people like you keep coming in and starting stuff. Quit it already.67.163.193.239 22:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would like to add, that because of that Zim guy, the forum is getting spammed with crazy Wiki people who are coming on and posting people's private information. If anything, after all the trouble Wiki has caused us, they kind of owe it to us to keep the link up.67.163.193.239 23:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the Princess' link! Her site is great and helped me a lot and Wiki should have it cuz it's informative and the Princess worked really hard! No other forum is as fun as her's either! So keep the forum link please! Spammers from here shouldn't be going there and bothering those of us there to post142.167.163.124 23:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am getting tired of seeing people drag this discussion up. The last time I saw this link being discussed, it turned into a miniature war between editors, and this discussion is quickly going towards the same fate. Why can't we just leave the link out? It's riddled with advertising, has no assertion of authority, and is clearly presenting information that the author is interpreting herself. Not to mention, I don't particularly favor some of the behavior I've seen here from the site's readers. We need to settle this before it gets out of hand (again), not by continually creating votes that are stacked by biased anonymous editors. Shadow1 (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with the links exclusion from the article. It doesn't seem to be a WP:RS or WP:V and has quite a few hallmarks per the External links policy not to be included. --Hu12 21:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If editors want to take an official position on the inclusion of the link, they should indicate so under the "proposal" section above. Not a dog 21:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

But that's not achieving consensus, that's a vote. The entire concept of Wikipedia is around community consensus. You could have 10 users that want to insert the link, and 9 users that want to leave it out, and whoever's running this vote would state that the official position is to leave the link in, even if other editors made well thought-out points relating to WP:EL. Certainly a way to end the discussion once and for all, but it's not the best way. Let's try to think about WP:VOTE before we start forgetting the core values of Wikipedia. Shadow1 (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

yeah, i don't need a lecture on process here. having people indicate their preference in a convenient manner as above makes gaging the level of consensus much easier than reading through all the blather here. Not a dog 00:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I rather think you do. Who's judging the consensus? Normally for voting-type discussions like AfD, an administrator will decide if consensus has been reached. For RfA, a bureaucrat will. So tell me, who's determining consensus here? Shadow1 (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The community, just as you suggested above. And since it wasn't going anywhere expect for anonymous blather back and forth in this commentary section, I was bold and added the link due to my review of opinions by experienced editors who expressed themselves in the proposal section. This ain't an AFD or RFA - no admins needed. If you really want, take this to an RFC, but above you called for resolution, so I think a lengthy debate over process might be counterproductive. Not a dog 14:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The root problem here is, of course, that this discussion started at all. There is no need for this link. If I had to guess, I'd say that the only reason we're talking about this right now is because the owner of the site keeps bringing this subject up to generate bandwidth. This is a spam problem, not a sources problem. Shadow1 (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the owner of the site has not even posted here at all. I'm speaking on behalf of adding the link. It is extremely informative and provides exstensive and in-depth information. That the link is not needed is only YOUR opinion. To people who play the game and would like to find more information, where are they supposed to go? The official site has even less info than the booklet that came with the game, and IGN has even less. This site is all that they got. It's not like this is Final Fantasy or some other game that is well-known and has tons of fansites. And on another note, Wikipedia's responsible for a lot of harassment to the runner of that site, as their members and admins have been spamming and attacking her sister forum. The least they can do is allow the link after all the trouble they have caused. And also, many people have stated how invaluable this link is to them and others.67.163.193.239 03:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'll step away with this. The behavior of the individuals involved in this conflict is a matter for another arena. The only discussion we need to have here is with regard to the article and whether the article is better with the link or without it. If you want to discuss people, go to their talk page (or better yet, just keep your mouths shut). The link has been put back. I support that move. Others have agreed. Those who disagree should make their case here and attempt to reverse the current feeble consensus. Have fun, I'm unwatching now. --Dystopos 04:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

While this is in no way relevant, we're not adding a link to say "we're sorry." There isn't any evidence that you can provide that proves members of Wikipedia attacked the forum, and even if they did, their action is their own and isn't taken on behalf of the project. But I digress. How many users have stated how valuable the site is? The members of the site? I'd assume it would be helpful to them. The only real reason we're discussing this is because the previous discussion removed the link, and people can't seem to let the dead stay buried, so to speak. Shadow1 (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Added link

I was bold and added the link due to the support votes. Not a dog 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Good God! This is still going on! This is insane. Just let people use Google. This isn't a damned link repository, get it through your heads. IvoShandor 12:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link. Contentious material isn't added and then discussed, it is discussed and then, possibly, added. That's the way it works, deal with it. (I also couldn't care less if anyone doesn't like my tone). IvoShandor 12:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so votes don't make a lick of difference as far as establishing consensus goes. IvoShandor 12:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I now recognize that my adding the link was a bad idea. Mea culpa. Not a dog 04:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible compromise on external links

I have added the {{dmoz}} template to the external links section of the article. DMOZ, unlike Wikipedia, is specifically a link repository, and this template is used in many articles where the discussion of external links has become contentious. Would those who support adding the Geocities link (and any other fansites, forums, etc.) instead be satisfied with adding it (follow this link) to DMOZ? It would then still be linked from this article via that repository website. I would submit the DMOZ request myself, but I am not familiar enough with the Geocities link to write the description. Thanks, Satori Son 14:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea that would satisfy everyone. IvoShandor 14:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the kind of boldness that can help the encyclopedia, it would be great to see this used on every article. IvoShandor 14:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Not a dog 17:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea in my opinion too.(190.64.66.208 05:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

I don't think it is a good idea. More than enough people have offered reasons why the link should be up, while no one has yet to come up with even a remotely good reason why it shouldn't be.67.163.193.239 08:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Since WP is not a democracy and most of those users seem to be anon members of the site in question, those "reasons" have very little weight here. Sorry. We don't work like some fly by night falling apart democratic government. IvoShandor 09:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything else aside. The fansite is absolutely FILLED with blatant copyright violations. Thus it should not be linked. IvoShandor 09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It was an admin's idea we vote in the first place. And those individuals deserve to have their opinions heard, because there is no proof where they came from or who they are. The same could easily be said about the people who voted to keep it down. And you cannot just go making such an accusation without proof. Where do you see these so-called "blatant copyright violations"67.163.193.239 10:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

For starters, I'd love to see where they pulled most of the images on the site from and whether the person who owns the copyright knows it. But aside from the copyright issue, I can't find any evidence that an admin told you to vote, and I highly doubt that an admin would have done this. Moreover, there's no proof of where you came from or who you are. I'm starting to suspect that you're affiliated with the site in some way, which would explain why you're working so hard to include the link. Shadow1 (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There is strong evidence (presented throughout above) that 67.163 is the owner of this site & its related forum. One diff suggesting this is here. Not a dog 14:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Shadow1, you're starting to suspect that she's affiliated with the site? Please, I/we proved it so many times it's funny. About the other thing, I don't know much about copyright issues, yet I know I still believe the link should the in that page, and not on wikipedia. (190.64.95.72 18:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

Which makes this into a ridiculously huge case of COI. And judging from the edit to the page that was just reverted, I would imagine that the user is about to start facing some rather nasty incivility charges. Shadow1 (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't go making accusations without proof? This isn't a court of law! Also please note my wording: most of those users seem. I am not accusing you of anything. Awfully defensive. IvoShandor 11:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I just want to see this resolved to everyone's satisfaction. I can tell you all right now that the Wiki isn't going to directly link to a site with questionable (possibly) copyrighted content. IvoShandor 11:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you call all the pictures YOU guys host here at Wikipedia. Those are all copyrighted by someone. The pictures in question were taken from IGN-a site that YOU have linked. Permission and credit were both given. This may not be a "court of law", but you still can't go around making accusations without concrete proof. And when it comes to votes like this, how do you honestly think you can get a non-biased vote? Since people on the associated forums ARE fans of Rule of Rose, chances are they have been here and would support the fansite in this argument. But likewise, the guys who attacked the associated forum are ALSO Rule of Rose fans, and I've already seen about three of them here saying they don't want the link up. Either way, us voting was an admin's choice. All three times we voted, despite the personal attacks and off-topic accusations, the link being put back up has won. And you guys have pulled out every dirty trick in the book to stop it, trying to spam the associated forum with lies and even daring to accuse the fansite owner of copyright infringement with no proof. Face it, the fansite does not infringe any copyright, it is informative and extensive, and the popular vote has supported and given many reasons why it should be allowed up, so you should all stop making excuses and put it back up.67.163.193.239 20:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You are making me mad. This is obviously a COI anyway. And I can do whatever I want. Say what I want as well, I really don't care if you don't like it. This is a discussion. Get a thicker skin. IvoShandor 22:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Also Dystopos is not an admin. I have no idea where you got that idea, and a vote still doesn't change the fact that WP is not a democracy. IvoShandor

You need to stop. We are trying to have a discussion here, and your personal attacks are not helping. An administrator is the one who told us to vote. It you do not like it, take it up with him or her.67.163.193.239 22:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Link is not a WP:RS or WP:V, and per the External links policy, a Link normally to be avoided. also it appears there is conflicts of interest WP:COI--Hu12 22:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. While it may sound like a dandy plan, there is no way to get people to review who are not involved in some way. You can't comment on the link's value if you have never even been there, and if you are not involved or a fan and the game, how can you know that things are not copyright infringement of how useful a site is? It's just not possible.67.163.193.239 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks? What the hell are you talking about? As I pointed out, the user who started the vote is not an admin, no idea where you are getting this idea. IvoShandor 04:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of votes, they are not the deciding factor. It's called consensus, that is the deciding factor, as I see it now, there is absolutely no consensus to add the site. Comments like "I like the site, keep it up" are not ever going to be considered by anyone evaluating this discussion as part of the consensus. Just give it up, your site can be linked through the directory. Wikipedia is not here to be your personal advertising service. If your site is so great, special and popular, then why doesn't it turn up anywhere in the first five pages of a Google search on Rule of the Rose? Yes, your site is so popular awesome it even has its own domain...err, nevermind. There is nothing notable, or extensive about that site. Half of the menu links went to blank white pages, real thorough. IvoShandor 04:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What IvoShandor says makes sense, and I no longer support the inclusion of this link. I just tried some of the pages on the site and they were down due to bandwith issues (geocities). Go figure. Not a dog 04:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ivo, stop with the personal attacks or I'll report you on the noticeboard. More than enough people have stated the many reasons why the link should be allowed up. It is both informative and exstensive. The blank white pages are sections still being edited, fanworks and gallery sections which, since they are not informative in nature, should not matter in this discussion. As other people have stated, Rule of Rose only has a small following, and it is extremely hard to find any sites on the game at all. It contains a lot of information that can not be found anywhere else, not even on the official site.67.163.193.239 05:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Report me. I have not personally attacked you. Using the word hell is not a personal attack, if you are referring to the talk about the site, I thought it wasn't yours?IvoShandor 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to your whole attitude. We are trying to have a serious, mature discussion here, but all you are doing it is being sarcastic and insulting. You stating all those false and rude things about the site I dislike simply because they are rude and false. That site is clearly extensive among other things, yet you try and say otherwise.67.163.193.239 06:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion on my rudeness is not how a personal attack is defined here. You are rude as well, as you have summarily ignored every single point made against the site and taken into consideration only those who agree with you. I figured you would ignore my reasons as well, which you have, as I suspected you would. In this case by going completely off topic and accusing me of a personal attack instead of addressing the relevant points I and many others have raised. IvoShandor 06:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition: a simple Google search shows that there is info out there, and that's just google: see [1] . If you think I am rude, I apologize but your failure to address many of the relevant points made above have caused me to believe you don't care about the discussion. You really should see the first criteria of WP:EL, the guideline around here on External links. The relevant portion is:

There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.

• Is it accessible to the reader?

• The answer here is no, Geocities sites have perpetual bandwith issues which cause them to often be unaccesible.

• Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?

• The answer here may or may not be yes, depending on your opinion.

• Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?

• This indeteminable, Geocities sites come and go, this one (based on the fact that it is still under construction) hasn't been around long enought to know whether it will be around on a continuing basis, thus it fails this criteria.

The link shouldn't be included. What's the problem with a link to the directory? Why is that not good enough for you? What is your interest here? It seems to be proven above that you are indeed affiliated with site which represents a conflict of interests. If you're site was truly that informative then why is there so much resistance to its inclusion? Perhaps, you should take that as a signal that it doesn't warrant inclusion. I have judged this site solely on its merits according to the guideline and determine that it doesn't belong as a direct link from Wikipedia, a lot of users agree with me. Some don't, not withstanding those whose sole contribution to our project has been at this disscussion, which means there comments don't carry as much weight as yours or mine do. I fail to see why you don't understand this. IvoShandor 06:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you would care to read through, you would see that I did respond to all those comments many times. After having to repeat myself for the tenth time, it gets tiring. The only reason the site has been down is because the creator was editing it. When the creator edits it, the pages being worked on tend to go down. I know this from personal geocities experience. As for being rude, all the people who supported the link up until this point were ignored by you and the others who don't want it up. They took the time to write extensive summaries on why they think the link should be up, but were simply ignored because some were first-time edits. So what? I was a visitor here for years before this recent edit about a subject I felt strongly about. As to why there is so much resistance, the answer is simple: "trolls". It's a bit of a long story, but the forum the person who created that site also created a forum to go with it. A group of trolls attacked that forum and have since been determined to attack the user and her sites/forums everywhere they can.(proof of this can be seen on the RoR page at gamefaqs). They think I am her, which is why they've been assaulting my talk page. They've also attacked her on other forums she owns as well as ones she is simply a member of. Gamefaqs is the best place to see what I mean. It is insane. They have made a post in a secret section of their forum for all members to come here and get rid of the link. The admin has seen this page and confirms that the IPs and usernames of a great deal of people against the link match the ones from the trolls bothering her. THAT is why there is so many who do not want the link included. You can see the proof both at gamefaqs and at her forum. It may sound out-there, but sadly, it is true.67.163.193.239 07:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

All this off-wikipedia activity is irrelevant. WP:EL is all that matters. Not a dog 07:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am unwatching this page. Have fun, this has to be one of the lamest things I have ever seen warred over. I tried to intervene as a neutral party when I saw it starting via GAC, I will no longer. Enjoy, my opinion is known. IvoShandor 07:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Having done an exstensive study of both the site in question and the WP:EL, I support this this link going up. The site seems to follow all the appropriate guidelines for an external link. It is pleasant to look at, has lots of information, and the lone ad on it is off to the side where it can be swept out of view with a simple click or left there and still not get in the way of reading. This game does have a very small fanbase, and what little info the typical game sites offer is unsatisfactory and often not even accurate. If I had not stumbled upon this fight, I would never have even found the fansite link, since it was not up on the main page. This is truly a shame. I often come here in hopes to find good fansite links for games such as this, but now it seems you are rather bent on removing them all. That's sad. Either way, I vote to allow this link.SirShiek 08:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)— SirShiek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hello SirShiek (talk · contribs) and welcome to Wikipedia. We hope you enjoy editing and decide to stay, but I would like to tell you a couple things. First of all, Wikipedia has a guideline that prohibits the editing of another editor's comments, as you did here. For the full policy details, see WP:TALK#Others' comments. Perhaps it was inadvertent, but please try to be more careful.

Second, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a repository of links; see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you "come here in hopes to find good fansite links for games", you will be disappointed. I suggest visiting DMOZ.com instead. Thanks and, again, welcome! -- Satori Son 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you must be mistaken, since I did not edit anything. As I said, I read the guidelines for external links and this fansite seems to be an appropriate one. Thus, it should definately be added.SirShiek 19:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, you did cut the WP:EL from my comment (here is your edit, note the red highlighted text to denote somethign that was deleted), but I assume it was a mistake. No biggie. But Satori is right about the appropriateness of the link, I'm afraid. Not a dog 19:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I read, and it does not say what she quoted about fansites. In fact, it says "including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate". Aside from that, the site does along with what an external link should be. It is informative, neuteral, pleasant to look at, not a personal page, and is not filled with lots of advertising, nor does it try to sell you stuff.SirShiek 20:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Satori was quoting you above. Not a dog 20:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Then what I've said above still rings true. I really don't see why everyone is making such a big deal. The site clearly follows the guidelines-certainly more than the IGN one you have linked. As is, the game only has two lniks, so what is the harm in adding one more? Really seems like you guys are making a mountain out of a molehillSirShiek 20:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I could easily argue that for an article with three external links, or four. Here's the core of this discussion: Why is it necessary? Let's stop thinking "Why shouldn't it be included?" but rather ask "Why should it be included?" In my opinion, the answer at this point seems to be because the owner of the site and her fans want it to, presumably for advertising. Shadow1 (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree there are clear conflicts of interest among those lobbying for this link, I doubt the intention is to spam for advertising purposes. More likely just a bunch of fans wanting to pump up their site for their own egos. Not a dog 21:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is rather rude to assume that just because people support the link they are affiliated with the site in question or that their reasons for doing so must be shallow. Why should it be included? Well, for one thing there is a serious lack of accurate info for this game out there. I have played the game myself, and my first words after beating it were "WTF?". I searched around, even on here, and found nothing to answer my many questions about the game I had just played. Most of the typical game sites were still claiming the game was about a recently orphaned girl being buried alive! This site was a godsend and helped answer many of my questions. The ones it did not answer I can always go discuss on the forum. The other supporters of the link have also stated similiar things. Also, as I pointed out, it follows the guidelines, as it is informative, exstensive, pleasant to look at, is not jumbled with annoying ads, is not a personal site, and retains a neuteral point of view. Sounds like more than enough reasons to support it being allowed.SirShiek 22:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of your intentions in this discussion because the first edits under your account were made to this discussion, and because your comments bear a striking resemblance to the anonymous editors who have commented here in the past. However, I am still not fully satisfied that this link is supported by Wikipedia's external links guidelines, and I'm sure many editors here will agree. Shadow1 (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We all have to start somewhere, don't we? And I took the time to give plenty of good reasons why the site should stay and pointed out how it followed the guidelines. If you are going to say that you are not fully satisfied, you could at least point out your own reasons for feeling this way. And again, I must say that it is rather insulting that everyone who defends this link seems to just be cast aside.SirShiek 03:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

One of my primary concerns is regarding WP:EL point #11: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." The author of this web site is clearly not an authority on the subject. The fact that this site is hosted on Geocities is also something to be concerned about, because the site probably exceeds its bandwidth every so often and visitors cannot view the content. Shadow1 (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That statement means that Wikipedia will not accept personal sites or blogs unless they are owned by a recognized authority. Since this site is not a blog nor a personal site, it does not need to be owned by such. And in all fairness, can you name me one site out there that does not have it's moments of downtime for whatever reason?SirShiek 19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

First, please learn to indent comments into threads for easier navigation of a conversation. Second, free webpages hosted by Geocities are de facto personal sites. Third, this particular site is frequently down. I've browsed to it a half a dozen times in the past few weeks, and half of the times it is down due to bandwidth issues. And if you are correct, adn the site has to be down in order for the owner to make changes, well, then, that's just another reason not to use Geocities. Not a dog 19:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Even sites like YouTube go down in order for the owners to make changes. And no, being hosted by geocities does NOT make it a personal site. Wikipedia states in the external links guidelines what person sites are-thing like blogs, resumes, bio sites, etc. This site is meant not to give information about the owner but about the game. It is wrong to label it as a personal site just because it is hosted on geocities.SirShiek 20:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Link down

I just checked the link - it's down again. Not a dog 21:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, you are really not helping. Sites do go down from time to time, no matter what kind of sites they are or who hosts them. I'm on the site right now, and it is working fine. Let's try to focus on the important things here.SirShiek 21:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, learn to indent comments to construct a discussion thread. That said, a site's stability and relative usability is very relevant for its possible inclusion. This site, being a free site on Geocities with limited bandwidth, is very erratic, and you cannot make comparisons to YouTube or other sites that do, occasionally, have down times for maintenence (scheduled in advance, timed at low-traffic periods).Not a dog 21:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I can, indeed. While some people may have problems viewing it at one specific time, it will work fine for others. For the most part, it works fine, but the owner has been doing some extra work on it lately to switch it over to a new layout. And besides, due to this whole dispute, it is probably getting spammed with visits from people. Any site can have problems when too many people view it. Even sites like YouTube and FanFictionnet can go down if two many people are viewing it at the same time. Nonetheless, both sites have whole sections dedicated to themselves.SirShiek 22:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is down again [2]. This is ridiculous. The site clearly isn't stable enough to be a useful reference for an encyclopedia article. Perhaps you should just submit it to dmoz as suggested above. Not a dog 23:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to question whether you are telling the truth. It is still working fine for me, as it has been since I last posted. You are really not offering much of a reason for it not to be allowed, aside from claiming that it is always down for you. You should try making more of an argument and maybe stop ignoring all the other points I have made above. It's really very impolite.SirShiek 23:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether Not a dog is right or not about the site stability (and I have no reason to doubt them), it seems clear to me that the consensus of the experienced editors here is that the website still does not meet the link inclusion criteria of WP:EL. At this point, I think the supporters of the fansite should respect that consensus and move on. -- Satori Son 23:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the site supporters are being treated unfairly. The site does indeed match the EL guidelines. I have pointed out how in my posts above. Just because I have not been an editor for a long time, that is no reason to push my or anyone else's opinion aside like it is nothing. The "consensus" here is not being respected at all. I've read through this entire discussion, and every person who has supported the link inclusion has been pretty much ignored, despite the good points they brought up. We took the time to point out all the reasons why the site should be allowed up, along with how it followed the guidelines for external links. All the opposing side has said it the same thing over and over about it being down a lot, when that does not even seem to be the case. In order to "respect the consensus", you need to take both sides into consideration. Focus on the points they bring up, not how much experience they have.SirShiek 00:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, since this discussion has long since ceased being productive, but I will make one more statement simply so you cannot say you were "ignored" again. You state "every person who has supported the link inclusion has been pretty much ignored". No, they have not been ignored, but their arguments have been dismissed as unpersuasive and/or inaccurate.

A handful of brand new contributors who are only here at Wikipedia to pitch this site, and who continue to state the same unconvincing arguments over and over, are not going to induce us to ignore long-standing editorial guidelines. I'm sorry, but this link is not going to be included.

I would strongly suggest once again that one of you submit this site to DMOZ so that it is still linked from this article via the {{dmoz}} template. That way, you should still see the increase in traffic you are seeking, but the quality of the article itself is not compromised. I know that is not the result you were seeking, but it is the only concession you are going to receive at this point. Please avail yourselves of it. -- Satori Son 19:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I will continue to stick up for those who are being treated unfairly. It does not matter what reasons are given, you guys have admitted not listening to those supporting the link. It SHOULD be included. Stop ignoring what we supporters are saying, for once.SirShiek 20:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)