Talk:GameFAQs/Archive 1

message: "GameSpot (Sister Site to GameFAQs)"
Really?  I didn't know that - I always thought they just paid GameFAQs to put text links. - Bulbaboy 23:19, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And the two sites share the same boards, and users of both forums resent the merger. --71.225.64.232 17:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GameSpot (Sister Site to GameFAQs?) 

message: Why hasn't the rampant tolerance of anti-semitic posts by the GameFAQs staff come up for discussion? Just look at some of their boards. Someone will make a post insulting Jews and the mods will ignore it. But insult Hitler, no, they won't stand for that. Even Jeff Greasey has refused to deny allegations of this in public. Oh well, hide it or not, I've let the ADL know of this, we'll see how long Veasey can hide it.
*Anti-semitism and other offensive remarks are not tolerated. Remember that the boards are patrolled by users, not Moderators. Moderators deal with issues brought to them; they cannot see everything at once. Also remember that this is a Wikipedia discussion page, and any complaints or gripes with the site do not belong here. --Scottie theNerd 18:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: anti-semitism

message: As the article is currently protected from editing, I must point out that there's a typo in the first paragraph under "LUE History". It should read "occurrence", not "occurence". Please fix it when you get the chance. Chris Roy 03:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor problem

message: Links to ToS violation and lots of other jargon-busters (some still to be written). At the moment parts of this page would be unintelligible to anyone new to the culture of sites such as this one. Andrewa 20:13, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Work required

message: Hmm ... does this article seem too much like the rest of the wiki? Say World Wide Web?
I think we need to clean up the article, wikify it, and remove the "Credits" section (although it was mostly written by etaonish and 24.*, eventually, it'll get edited beyond comprehension — page history is here for a reason!)
Just my 1.4142 cents. [ alerante 20:25, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This article isn't very wiki-ish at all

message: What is it?  There doesn't seem to be much explanation...  --Erik Garrison 06:20, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karma 

message: "Review Contributors is the board for all the review writers to talk about common interests. This board has been split to better categorize the discussions on it. It is now composed out of <B>three boards</B>: General, Help and Critiques, and Social."
: I don't see what the problem is. The three boards are here, here and here. Unless there's a fourth board which nobody else here knows about, in which case feel free to point it out. 80.65.242.104 00:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone can't count... 

message: I think it's time to sepearte the message boards list from the main GameFAQs article Hbdragon88 05:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperating the message boards? 

message: After recent events, should the article be updated to reveal what hapenned?
:Not notable. No. TheCoffee 2 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)
:What happened involving Sashanan? He is one of the most senior moderators on Gamefaqs. Rdysn5 04:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Some vids, pics, and stories. Mostly exaggerated by LUEsers. --Asfalterisk 19:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sashanan 

message: It seems that a vandal erased the History section from the article and the change went unnoticed. I can't fix this because the article is protected at the moment. 郵便箱 07:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History deleted? 

message: Request on WP:RFPP. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. 郵便箱 05:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: It seems just a scan over this unwieldy large article has several problems with bias. Rants on increasing ad-placement, trolls, and anti-CNET comments are overtly common. Maybe less commentary and focus more information. History should really only be a couple paragraphs. Pranks could be a category, as well as: popular board references, statistics on users/FAQs/codes/etc., contests, and spinoffs. K.I.S.S. --Greyhawk0 08:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has, as you can see, been edited by a large number of Gamefaqs users, and not enough actual Wiki contributors.  It also gets vandalized almost every day... Amren (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias?

message: Talk:LUElinks
It's a start to a serious article about the site. It should NOT redirect here. LUElinks is in no way affiliated with GameFAQs.
--NSA 06:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  LUELINKS 

message: Please be more careful when you revert vandalism and check if you may have inadvertently neglected to restore any content deleted by vandal(s). 郵便箱 08:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections being deleted 

message: What's up with that? Maybe you guys should include an article about the Moderator problem on GameFAQS. I first I didn't think there was much of a problem, obviously until I was banned. I've seen far worse posted on GameFAQS and everyone seems to complain about the "Evl moderators" So I was just wondering, what was your opinion on it all?
:They're like this because people are going to far. If everyone would follow the rules more, they wouldn't be so cruel in reinforcing it. Sure, the new mods are a little outrageous but they'll sttle in soon. --Asfalterisk 11:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: snicker. This article isn't for complaining about your problems on the site. Toffile 12:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've been a member of the site since 2001. "Long-time" users are constantly leaving the site...some get banned and don't come back, some just are knee jerk reactionaries and oppose any change...as for what gets deleted and what doesn't it depends on if it's marked or not. I haven't found the new mods to be very harsh...so I really can't comment on that. And please use ~~~~ to sign your comments on a page...Toffile 04:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is true. I'm one of those long timers. First suicided level 36 account to be exact. 80.65.248.225 04:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Make a new one. Sometimes when an account gets banned, accounts will continually be set at read-only. They never change status either. Toffile 20:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I was banned from GameFAQS for calling a guy a dolt. 

message: This whole article needs to be completely re-written. The history section covers only a small scope of specific events, the spinoff section is way too detailed, etc. There needs to be more about contributions, etc. I do have the will to do it- just not tonight ^_^ ~RockMFR 164.107.197.49 06:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive re-write in the future 

message: I feel that both SMS FAQ Completion Project and NES FAQ Completion Project should be merged into this article.  Out of respect for the contributors to those articles, I am proposing a merge instead of being bold and merging them without a discussion.  I feel that both articles aren't really notable.  There are only 11 google hits for the NES article which doesn't really pass the Google test.  Furthermore, the FAQs section of this article is a little on the skimpy side and this would give it relevent content.  The primary purpose of GameFAQs is the FAQs after all.  Thoughts? --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the problems I see is that the projects are not official GameFAQs projects and not formally endorsed by the site; Rather, they are community initiatives. --Scottie theNerd 02:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A large portion of the article is devoted to spinoffs which AFAIK aren't official GameFAQs projects either.  It could also be argued that a (minor) difference between the two is that the spinoffs are community initiatives that don't directly contribute to the site, whereas the FAQ completion projects do. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of the mind to remove the spinoff section. I do agree on the merging of the SNES and SMS Completion projects with this article though. --Scottie theNerd 13:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  However, I wouldn't be opposed to having a very small section of GameFAQs message boards overviewing the spinoffs as long as it stay encyclopedic. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the merge of the Completion Project articles. The spinoff thing is a totally different matter, but it would make sense to move it to the message boards article and shorten it significantly. 164.107.197.49 17:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the spinoffs section would be better truncated to just the first 2 paragraphs. The rest of it doesn't seem significant enough to warrant keeping. Fik 18:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Project articles, since they're relatively short, can definitely be merged. I also agree with the shortening of the spinoffs section (not a complete removal of it, though. Just take out the specifics.). --dws90 04:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clear consensus.  I went ahead and merged the articles into GameFAQs.  I also condensed them both quite a bit, but if someone wants to add more detail the histories are available. NES Project article history and SMS Project article history. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Merge 

message: First off I have been at Gamefaqs jsut after it had message boards.
So I am not some new kid on the block to the site.
1. Mods get away with anything. The site needs improvments with mods! And if you mention anything like "Why do you mods <insert thing>" they delete your posts. They have power controls issues. CJAYC has the biggest one, I am disabled and one time years ago tried contacting him because I was mocked because of my spelling and people and even mods mocked me and kept deleting my topics and CJAYC told swore at me in an email and told me he could give a **** that I am disabled and thats no excuse or his problem. And yes a long time ago you were able to contact him. While I feel for all the work he has to do that really was no way to treat someone disabled.
Since then I have a new account and recently have been having problems with idiot mods again and their "over control". The site is mostly teens and power control mods. 
BTW I bet this will be edited out always, godforbid anyone should speak the truth or have an opinion other then "All hail GameFAQS". The editing here and control is just like the control on GFaqs but they have more power here because they can change words around and make whole articles go away!
And before someone says "Don't bring this up here go the the forums". Yeah I would but I tried and was nice and got my account "warned". Yeah, theres no problems at Gamefaqs!
2. Snitches are a major problem too. No matter what you do even if its an accident or whatever someone is always there to turn you in! Heck it can be nothing and someone will twist it and turn you in and you won't even know its a against the TOS! They need a system to see who turned you in or something so we can see who the snitches are, I bet there are some realyl big ones that have nothing better to do then surf the forums and look for "TOS violating" topics! I should know, my friend is one of the people!
3. Freaks. The third biggest pain is grammer/spelling freaks and "others". I obviously can't help it and am not waiting an extra 15 minutes in a spell checker. Alot of people do nothign but piss you off by telling you what you spell wrong and what not. They need to be moderated. Make that a new TOS rule! Who cares! 
This also goes with freaks like the ones that always go "Old news is so exciting". WHO the heck cares what you think! It may be old news to you but usually half the people don't know about it. They need some new rules like "No stupid remarks like..." and then list some! --BestBuyBeast666 07:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the Internet. This is Wikipedia; the Exit button is that way -> --Scottie theNerd 07:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, welcome to Wikipedia.  This a discussion page for an article in an encyclopedia.  Any personal problems you have with any particular website doesn't belong here. However, any beneficial contributions to Wikipedia that you may have are more than welcome. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As stated above, if you have problems with the site, keep it between you and the site. If you have something informative to write about the site, add it to the article. If all you've got is dirt you want to throw into the site and can do nothing but vandalise articles and slander the site's staff, please leave. --Scottie theNerd 12:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MODS, snitches and freaks! Things need to be changed!

message: Can we reach some agreement as to what criteria we're following as to whether or not links remain in the list? Every edit I see in this article has someone adding links and the next guy removing them a few minutes later. --Scottie theNerd 06:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're following WP:EL. Hope that helps. Hiding  talk 13:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding/Removing External links 

message: Okay, I noticed the article had text from  pasted in.  That site declares the content Copyright © 2004 GameFAQsInfo.net so following WP:CV I had to revert to an early version and add stuff back in which wasn't in violation of copyright.  I also took the opportunity to format the references, rewrite the copyrighted text and rewrite the article, removing information I take to be un-needed.  I appreciate it isn't going to be to everyone's tastes, but I'd be grateful if people build from this rather than revert to a copyright violating version.  I've added citation templates where I feel they are needed, I hope that and my usage of references helps clarify what I was looking for when I added the tag. Hiding  talk 21:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really calling BS on this one.  I searched through the history of this article and found that as far back as May 8, 2004 the artcile had resembled what was allegedly copyrighted on GameFAQsInfo.  A search on archive.org shows that the GFAQsInfo doesn't even have an archive page until June 11, 2004.  I think that this is some nice circumstantial evidence that GFAQsInfo copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around.  However, I do acknolwedge that it's not a smoking gun, and I know that it's not very credible to rely on the Wayback Machine to prove a point... - Hbdragon88 01:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can prove that then its certainly worth letting the foundation know so that they can decide whether to file suit against GameFAQS for copyright violation.  I apologise if you believe what I did was bullshit, I can only assure you that I was acting in good faith, and ask that you accept that fact. Hiding  talk 12:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make no mistake, I know that you are acting in good faith and doing what is best for Wikipedia.  It's just that I feel so damn sure (but can't exactly prove it) that we came up with it first, not them.  For instance, GFInfo also claims copyright to Hyena 20's "History of LUE" section, but I know that has appeared on other sites; it's Hyena 20's copyright, not theirs.  I'm trying to find proof - but trying to access the "History of GameFAQs" page on the archive on any archive is inaccessible.  I'll keep looking... - Hbdragon88 05:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: GameFAQsinfo, not GameFAQs. The sites aren't affiliated. --Scottie theNerd 12:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, thanks for the correction. Hiding  talk 12:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I finally nabbed a copy of the GF Info "History of GameFAQs" page that dates back to June 9, 2004 .  This is after than the very look-alike version on May 8, 2004 on Wikipedia.  Before that the link is a dead link.  Is this concrete proof that they stole from us? - Hbdragon88 07:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The history page on GameFAQsInfo.net was originally written on Wikipedia. I honestly don't know what the issue is here. And the copyright notice on the bottom of their pages is not exactly correct (they claim to have copyright on lots of stuff which they don't). Why are we even discussing this? The article needs to be restored. Either we can come to an agreement on this, or I will be bold.  164.107.197.49 06:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation, rewrite and citations

message: Well, I have done about 45 reviews in GameFAQs. On the 28th of March 2006, I checked to see if my 45th review got in. Yes, it said. It said accepted. But, my reviews dissapeared. AGH! I did reviews for games like Jedi Outcast or Star Wars: Obi-Wan. They all disappeared without a trace. And, I did not include E-Mails or addreses or copyrights in my review. They were just like normal ones. I dod not even steal peoples work. I did have those games. What the frekkin hell happened? Weirdy 7:17AM AEDST April Fools Day.
:Wikipedia is not the place for this discussion.--Toffile 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My reviews damn reviews

message: Someone visit the site now and tell me what's going on.
: It's having technical problems caused by the cluelessness of its users. Fik 21:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is wrong with the site? 

message: Try going to gamefaqs.com. It has been shut down by the crazy fascist bastards that apparently own CNET. The Wikipedia article should be modified to reflect GamFaqs's current state.
:Or it could be an April Fool's joke.--Toffile 00:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you do, do not scroll down to the end of that page. --Scottie theNerd 02:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, do NOT scroll down the page on April Fools Day. If you do, you will be banned from GameFAQs. *Wink, Wink* Weirdy 06:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPORTANT NOTICE 

message: It appears somone reverted this article.  I've restored references, referenced text, the references template, the citation templates and the external links.  I'd be interested in hearing discussion on the article and ways to move it forward. Hiding  talk 09:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've performed another copyedit, added a lot more citation neededs.  You can see the references already used, it'd be nice to get the citation needed templates removed legitimately.  The information must have come from somewhere, so can sources be provided?  Otherwise, the information will fall foul of WP:NOR. Hiding  talk 10:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, most of the information comes from either original research or were made in announcements long since gone, and naturally a corporation like CNET didn't make any announcements regarding its purchase of the site. The evidence was there, if you get my drift. --Scottie theNerd 11:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, if there's no way of accessing the information, then it is original research and will have to be removed.  Do any of the announcements exist in the Internet Archive?  Hiding  talk 12:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Those "message board posts" are official announcements from the site's creator. The webmaster does not release site announcements anywhere other than through the boards. They're as good as any announcement on a corporate web site. --Scottie theNerd 10:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, what I'll do is add that to the footnotes then, that should prevent other editors removing them, or at least point them to the fact that removal should be discussed first. Hiding  talk 11:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I've added a note to that effect. Hiding  talk 11:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  restored references, cleaned out external links 

message: Per WP:RS, bulletin board and message board posts aren't reliable sources.  Can we get any better sourcing on this? Hiding  talk 10:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those "message board posts" are official announcements from the site's creator. The webmaster does not release site announcements anywhere other than through the boards. They're as good as any announcement on a corporate web site. --Scottie theNerd 10:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, what I'll do is add that to the footnotes then, that should prevent other editors removing them, or at least point them to the fact that removal should be discussed first. Hiding  talk 11:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I've added a note to that effect. Hiding  talk 11:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources

message: Even if GameFAQs has redesigned, it has not been dissolved into Gamespot. After protection is taken off, any redirects WILL be treated as vandalism Sceptre (Talk) 17:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to assume some pretense of authority, do it with some maturity please. Fik 21:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The recent redesign 

message: "Veasey collected a reported $2.5 million and agreed to a 2 year no compete clause. [citation needed]"
This should be removed to 'rumoured' 2.5million, since there is no source at all. And since it is a rumour it should be removed totally. The value is pure speculation.
* I managed to find this while trying to gain clarification on that $2.5m figure. $2.5m is way off. Steel359 15:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. The total sum for all 3 properties was 2.2 million. The current reference says that C-Net paid 2.9 million to accquire 5 separate entities.  There's no way the math will work in favor of the 2.5 million. I'm removing that entire claim.--Toffile 15:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No proof of 2.5million$