Talk:Habbo/Archive 3

message: It's important...it cause complete chaos at Habbo. It's verifiable...I added a link to evidence. Don't delete what I added just because the fact of the raid offends you.
Check out the history of the article Lewis Carrol. People there repeatedly try to delete the info about Carrol's drug use and pedophilic inclinations, because they don't like it, but that derision doesn't make it any less significant.
There's plenty of evidence for Carrol's embarrasing truths that I am sure you, Seicer, might consider "unreliable", but as they are significant, in the Carrol article the editors COMPROMISED. Note the word COMPROMISE. They (1) cited all the evidence,  and (2)admit that it is not absolutely verifiable, in the article. Zaorish 19:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned the article and referred to the "raiders" as "vandals" as appropriate.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed it.  Per everything that has been said previously.  Since when did forum raids become encyclopedic events, since when has a digg for a youtube video become anything less than worthless.  I didn't delete it because it "offends" me, but because its absolutely unencyclopedic and irrelevent to the history of the website/game.  I first mentioned it back at Archive 1, it's crap, no one cares apart from YTMND clowns.  This raid is about as encyclopedic as a any other forum raid, it happens, a lot.  It's about as relevent to an encyclopedia as mygot, sod that, we might as well list all those incredibly encyclopedic YTMND memes, and every single worthless viral video.  LOLLERBLADES.  I'm sorry, I can't help but show contempt for the absolutely asinine webculture crap that permeates Wikipedia. - hahnchen 19:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You've confused the notion of offense with that of contempt, it's quite a simple one, but pretty irrelevant to the discussion.  You compare random Habbo trolling to that of citations about Lewis Carroll's character (citations including a biography and a PHD paper), whereas it's actually more relevant to compare this to myg0t, or this.  It's an absolutely trivial event, whereas legitimate news sources have picked up on Second Life troll attacks such as this.  Look at what your "compromise" paragraph says, that Habbo gets trolled, that's basically it.  The date given is totally arbitrary, I'm sure that it was trolled before that, and it'll be trolled even after xchan get bored of it.  I don't see how you find this significant in the slightest, Tim Moore didn't when he wrote the Telegraph article on it, his major concern was over the phising and scam attacks which take place.  I used to play counter-strike, in cs_siege, 2 terrorists can block the entire team and just one could hamper the team greatly.  Quite a lot of players know about this and have been affected by it, you still see it happen.  It doesn't mean it belongs to an encyclopedia. - hahnchen 03:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am actually waiting to see what happens to the GNAA article.  If that goes, then I'm swiping it, but right now, that "web culture" piece is on WP:DRV. - hahnchen 04:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I added info about the attacks under 'History'.

message: Editors mistake neutrality for positive factuality, or at least try to remove negative facts in order to promote a more positive image of a subject.  This is not factual accuracy, but a form of bowdlerization that attempts to avoid facts that the author personally dislikes.  Wikipedia is not a press release, and therefore should not resort to deletion of unwanted facts when, in the long term, both sides of an issue should be presented.  
The Steve Irwin article contains a short summary of the "baby dangling" incident, despite any negative feelings it may bring in some readers, especially after the person's death.  On the other end of the spectrum, authors like John Byrne have taken it upon themselves to edit their own article, removing inconvenient or unflattering facts, regardless of their inherent truth.  Wikipedia is not about censorship, it is not pravda or 1984, and it does not deserve to be a mouthpiece for propogandandist statements that ignore the bad and only mention the good.  
Because this article focuses on a multiplayer game, it becomes especially important to cite other points of view.  Aside from specific game criticism (see Ultima Online issues faced and Criticism of World of Warcraft), many popular games have a section summarizing game and company related disputes (Star Wars Galaxies, RuneScape).    Though Habbo is not notable enough to have its own criticism article, the ommision of a criticism section implies that the game, as a whole, does not warrant attention and   has no place on an online encyclopedia.  Not only do well written criticisms exist (see literary criticism and the category on criticism), but specific game concepts have been analyzed such as Cheating in online games, Player killing, grind and Timesinks.  These articles are not censored or deleted due to players or employees feeling the concepts are "unpleasant" or that they negatively reflect the game genre.  Rather, criticism is welcomed in a descriptive, neutral, and civil context, and help the game community evolve as a whole.
:There absolutely is the space for a criticism section, Tim Moore's linked piece from the Telegraph Magazine is an easy place to start, it deals with the phishing and scamming which takes place on Habbo. - hahnchen 04:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bowdlerization

message: groups of Habbo vandals (see history)
What history section?  I was a bit surprised to see no mention of the vandalism in this article, as I've definitely seen relics from it floating around in the form of screenshots and so on. - 60.36.46.80 07:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See reliable sources and verifiable sources. The vandalism to Habbo is covered.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, so it is. My apologies. - 219.194.176.88 08:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Following the comments I left above, if the GNAA, ED, Slashdot trolling get swiped from Wikipedia, then I'm getting rid of the Habbo trolls.  Which are similar but less significant. - hahnchen 17:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: @Anomo: "The raiding stuff" is unfortunately un-sourceable (unless you create an archive site that becomes popular).  We had earlier agreed to leave it on by consensus (which is Wikipedia in its fundamental form), but since the GNAA, ED, and Slashdot trolling have been removed by consensus (I assume), the Habbo raids are also removed.  To be honest, I'm not sure why Habbo hotel even has its own article at all...even such pithy raids have made up more than 50% of its traffic at several points.--Dch111 21:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken References?

message: It's listed as Jibbi becoming manager after Daisy, and then ione after Jibbi.  This is incorrect.  After Daisy it was ione, then it was Jibbi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.41.112.35 (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ione and Jibbi are mixed up 

message: Lack of grammar in the "HabboHome" part of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spebi (talk • contribs) 04:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could edit it yourself, you know...  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HabboHome

message: It looks like an Info Bus is spelled differently depending on the geography or who sponsors it.  I chose Info Bus after checking the official Habbo North America Web site, even though the screen captures clearly show that it is different on Habbo UK and possibly elsewhere. --DeweyQ 13:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info Bus versus Infobus 

message: Does anyone know who the richest habbo is? I've heard a character named americansheriff on habbo.co.uk. It would be an interesting fact and important to show just how important it is to a lot of people. I've heard of people investing thousands in it?
If someone can confirm some users of notable wealth then we could discuss the possibility of adding them. It would make them a celebrity because 66 million people use habbo and there must be some extremely wealthy habbos around. 
Also the prevalence of scamming and scripting should be mentioned more, many scripters have openly admitted wanting to destroy habbo (destroy something which brings fun to millions, God knows why but regardless) from within and perhaps the many online petitions and general protest against the removal of the hobbas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.217.14 (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richest Habbo 

message: Every part of the Hotel DOES NOT have to be covered.
- Hotel's Habbo Xs do NOT need to be listed
- Every game on the Hotel does NOT need to be listed
- Small parts such as furniture prices DO NOT need to be listed.
Put yourself in the article reader's position. You wouldn't need to know everything.
Also, when using the word "Habbos" try to replace it with "players" (e.g. Players in the Hotel instead of Habbos in the Hotel.
Unreferenced stuff and unnessecary stuff does NOT need to be in the article, and will be removed.
Sebi 04:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EDITOR'S NOTE - IMPORTANT