Talk:Habbo/Archive 6

message: There's a raid going right now, just look for your self.
Get some pictures and bam, citations!
:Nope. That would be original research. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 10:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC
::Deaded Walrus is right. Wikipedia has many pages and articles explaining the rules and the reasoning behind them, you are best off ignoring this current events, obey the rules. Anything else is just trolling. (a5y 02:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the award for the least-subliminal subliminal message goes to A5y! Also, you spelt my name wrong. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 02:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently this did happen, if you refer to Encyclopedia Dramatica's page on "The Great Raids of July 2006#Reunion", see the image. This wouldn't be the first time this has occurred, as [www.habbo.com.au] replaced the robot to match the appearance of an apparent raider to which it shouted automated saying such as "Dress like us to keep the Pool OPEN!" and "Pool's not closing today!" -- Kai talk 13:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one editing the article or reverting the trolling on the article is denying the raids are happening – but Wikipedia doesn't base its content on what players of the game say, or popular demand. Wikipedia displays facts, and facts only, and these facts come from reliable sources that can be verified, and at the moment there are none of these. I, personally, are not denying that they happened. It looks like myself and other users constantly revert the rubbish out of the article are denying it happened, but we are not. Sebi [talk] 04:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raid going on RIGHT NOW 

message: If someone were to get the Habbo mods/admins/owners to release a statement verifying the existence, in full, of the raids, would they be included in the article? As that is the only semi-valid reason for not mentioning them, I think a simple announcement from a Habbo employee could verify them. Thoughts? *Waiting for someone to make up some new bullshit ending in the raids still not being mentioned* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.57.3.154 (talk • contribs).
:If you look above, noone is saying that they shouldn't be included because they don't exist. We know they exist. But we don't have reliable sources to cite. See this response, for example, for a good explanation of why we cannot mention the articles. This is not new reasoning, simply looking through this talk page shows that everyone here knows the raids have happened, but that we cannot find reliable sources that we can use. It would be useless to simply state in the article "there have been raids". We would need to flesh it out with encyclopedic information about the raids from reliable sources, of which, from my understanding, there are none. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 03:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it helps, folks, most of what people looking for info on the raids is now present in this discussion, and thus available.  --Anansii 06:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we could use it, but we can't use it if you don't provide us with some sort of online news report on Fox news' website about it, or a transcript of the news report (don't all news giants post their TV news on their website, these days?). Sebi [talk] 08:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link to the Fox website with the video. There's a short clip about "Anonymous raiding Habbo Hotel". http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=3894628&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1 83.245.148.6 13:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope the contribution above doesn't go unnoticed: a reliable source has finally been acquired.    They are mentioned with a video clip during the latter half of the investigation.  Those for inclusion, take notice of the above link. Edit: whoops, didn't see the below discussion--Dch111 02:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources for the raids

message: http://youtube.com/watch?v=9pyR_90RdOg
Is that A notable enough source for you, they mention the Habbo raids Its FOX LA, Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.91.25.53 (talk • contribs).
:I've watched the news report now, and I must say the ineptitude of the report itself gave me my morning laugh. :)
:As for the raids, it mentions the raids, yes, but barely. All it says about them is: "The pranks are often anti-semetic, or racist, and always posted on the internet, but truly epic lulz come from raids and invasions, branded on the Anonymous website with an I."
:Which isn't really much to go off if we were to include it in the article.
:So yes, it's a notable source (regardless of how inept this particular report may or may not be), but unfortunately the material on the raids isn't really citeable.
:In my opinion. It would be nice to see what others think of this, though. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 09:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember to sign your posts by adding ~~~~ at the end. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 10:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this Sourcetoads? 

message: First you say they never happened, then you say they did happen but you "can't include them in the article because there are no citable sources."
May I introduce you to the [Citation needed] tag, which is used in pretty much EVERY OTHER ARTICLE on statements that are true but have not yet been verified by a reasonable source. The only reason you've been keeping the information out of the article is because you can't bear to think of something so uncouth happening to your wonderful virtual world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.133.162 (talk • contribs).
:I have looked up and down this talk page, and I cannot find anywhere were any user states that they didn't happen, yet time and time again people come here and say "stop denying they happened!". As for saying we don't want negative things about the game in the article's that's ridiculous, when, at the bottom of this talk page, we are currently discussing including text from a not-exactly-positive review. Add on top of that the fact that I have never even played the game, and there is no conflict of interest here.
:And besides, the raids are mentioned in the article, ever since we had, wait for it, that reliable source to use! So stop your moaning. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 20:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  tag is not a substitute for a reliable source. Just because thousands of other articles use it, doesn't mean that it makes it right, because it doesn't. If you were paying attention to any of the above discussion, you would learn that we have already included it in the article. Please check your facts before you accuse others. –sebi 07:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also noticing your creative header, there is no "arguement" against the inclusion of the raids; the raids have been included, we have supplied all the information that can be backed up using a reliable source, and that's that. –sebi 07:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The arguement against the inclusion of the raids in the article is farcical.