Talk:Habbo/Archive 2

message: Well, now that the raiders are officially cited in this SoaP discussion, it's justifiable to include the raids, which have had a great impact on Habbo altogether. It doesn't matter whether or not "you" think it's not notable enough, despite an official Habbo response and many changes to the word filter, it's not "your" decision on what is and isn't notable. The fact of the matter is, it's happened, it's gained prominence, and it's about damn time this article stopped sounding like one gigantic ad. --Almighty WALKER 06:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen, article is retarded. Countchoc 09:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No one reads the big boxes at the top of Talk pages anymore. Shame, if they did they'd learn a lot. --james(talk) 10:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shhh. That's too hard. I also think that the OP should look at the archives, to see why we decided not to allow that crap on here.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snakes on a Plane + Raids 

message: [edited for updates/briefing]
Slim.  (Though not impossible)[] I sympathize with those who witnessed and know the magnitude of the event (I personally want it included), but from an analytical standpoint, it won't [likely] be accepted by Wikipedia.  It should be, but, unfortunately, it [probably] won't [].  For a few reasons: 
*1. The context of the raid. [replaces 4 for main reason]  The people watching this article who are not as familiar with internet culture hear about the "nigras" and "pool's closed" and they immediately don't want something like that tainting their article.  Even if the word "Habbo" sounds silly anyway.
*2. It is an "internet phenomenon."  Internet phenomenon[a] and Wikipedia have not historically got along together well, and in fact, the List of Internet phenomena page has had several attempted deletions on it, which it has fortunately survived through.  In the words of an attacker on the Internet Phenomenon deletion discussion page: "What constitutes a true "internet phenomenon" is inherently a matter of personal opinion and can never be mutually agreed on." The main thing is that, despite the significance of such events/items, they remain [] esoteric [to the wider world.]
*3. People who made/moderate this article.  [] There may be some users who really don't want anything negative about Habbo being said, whether it be for commercial reasons, or personal reasons, such as their being a big fan of the site, and they have the upper hand (see below) so they won't let anything that goes against their bias enter.  Whether this is ethically correct is another issue. The other type of person is the Wikipedia administrator who is busy with other things and will take a quick glance and [] write it off as vandalism.  Again, unjust, but there's [little] one can do about it.
*4. References and sources. [not as relevant anymore now that there's photographic evidence] [] This is the [former] main reason, and one that gives most unbudging users the upper hand I mentioned earlier in controlling the information in this article.  [Formerly]untouchable.  This is a very specical obstacle specific to internet culture that probably will not be overturned for at least 10-30 years [or less, depending], when all the current journalists, reporters, historians, etc. are retired and replaced by the current teenage generation.  It's not that not enough people [respect it], it's just that not enough people with [control] [respect it].  If you check out all the internet meme pages, most of them will have the "does not cite its references/sources" tag on them.  Wikipedia [does not] understand why they should accept such information with good faith, especially as it is lacking in "seriousness." [I'd like to point out though], that, as summed up by another user, "If the standard for Wikipedia is to wait for information on a topic to show up in a library, it will make it much more difficult to build up and revise content on a topic."  Too bad the administrators [aren't really helpful in that aspect], esp. for this kind of topic.
So my advice to those dismayed by the lack of the blockade inclusion? Wait it out,[].  In time it will have substantial proof and backing, but as of now, [the situation is unbudging].  Yes, there are sources, but sources that strict Wikipedians will not accept because [they just don't like it].  (that Youtube/Googlevideo video is proof when you ignore the random images that make it look unreliable, which many people will not do)
My [] word to the so-called "protectors"?  The article is fine as it is right now; no vandalism or significant mention of the raid.  Don't go on overzealously deleting [things yet]; they don't really detract from the article in any way (in fact they generally add to the article, and are not glorifying the raid in any way []), and the fact that no one is adding anything else more should be satisfactory for now.  In addition, most of those ["so-called unverified"] parts of the article can be verified just by going to the site.  I don't know how to cite that, because apparently, I cannot use the site itself as a reference.  [] Other then that, that's all I have to say, and may things work out as they should. [] :-)  --Dch111 03:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great post. You hit m:Eventualism right on the head. Well done. :) --james(talk) 11:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The true plausibility of the raid ever being mentioned. 

message: Are there any and should they be put up here? --71.109.37.168 04:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gaia Online's towns feature is remarkably like Habbo. Calicore 06:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMVU also looks in competition with Habbo. Extranet  06:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competitors 

message: Why was my article on the critisisms deleted? Not as if I was the one critisising them, I spent time compelling the critisisms from the various Habbo Hotels, and found out there were many 
: It was one giant weasel. Here is the page history if you want to correct it by citing sources and removing weasel words. Please don't revert to that if you are - just copy the mentioned text, edit it, and paste it into a new subheading.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critisisms

message: This wiki documents the 9/11 raids, if ayone needs verification, or wants to include the link here (since I don't feel like registering):
http://www.trendpediawiki.com/Habbo_Hotel_9/11/06_Raid
And let's be honest, the raids are just about the only notable thing about "Habbo Hotel." No raids, no one would give a shit.
:"Anywhere else on the Internet" is not a reliable source. Also, "no one would give a (poo-poo)" is a pretty accurate description of how most people feel about the raids themselves. Thunderbunny 01:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "'Anywhere else on the Internet' is not a reliable source." <--Plenty of references are based off the internet.--Dch111 22:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It also has no relevance to the game in that it is not encylopedic quality. Let's leave all the drama to that other wiki or to Encylopedia Dramatica - where it is more suited.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I saw Habbo Started this group called Emo Oranges that are supposedly based on the avatar style of the raiders, but with orange afros instead of black ones.  Anomo 00:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification. 

message: I wrote a page on someone on wikipedia which was important and it got deleted and it makes me angry that Habbo Hotel is on wikipedia. How could Habbo be important. Phh this is one of the lowest places wikipedia has ever gone (no offense). Honestly I say GET RID OF HABBO HOTEL ON WIKIPEDIA Harry Kewell #10 00:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any constructive comments on why this article fails to meet the standards for Wikipedia? I'm not a player of the game and hold no opinion for or against it, but to discredit it based on the raids by an "encylopedia" makes it appear that they win.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was just addressing Habbo Hotel in general, not the raids.  Also, Harry, what was the article that got deleted?--Dch111 03:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Habbo's only notable sources are http://www.frontiertouring.com.au/pages.aspx?pubid=1&issid=1&artid=481&pgid=493&type=xPO&r=H and http://www.skyesweetnam.com/index.aspx#6138 .  All the other links are from Habbo's website. Also to Harry Kewl, I see no AFD voting on your contributions, so I don't know what the article was that got deleted, but you didn't vote to keep it. Anomo 03:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: On the contrary, lack of notable sources is grounds for deletion for anything and everything (I myself am not all that deletion happy, but I've encountered those who are and they will beat the "No verifiable sources!" horse to death). However, I think because of Habbo's commercial nature it should be easy to find mention of it in a reliable source, like a newspaper or two. Since this is a web-based game, WP:WEB should be used to judge it. Xuanwu 22:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Habbo Is Stupid 

message: Today I removed the notice saying that the subject matter was disputed, as it is clearly Web Content. I also added a section about Habbo in the press, after an article in the Telegraph Magazine today (including citations).
:Yeah, I actually have a copy of this article.  Tim Moore (writer) is a pretty decent writer, who also wrote for Digitiser and knows his computer games/online worlds.  The Telegraph magazine is an obviously reliable source, and they've recently done a story on Wikipedia.  So I've removed the notability tag. - Hahnchen 04:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In The Press" Section Added and Subject Matter Notice Removed 

message: This section is an attempt for a renewed, serious discussion on the habbo raid. The main arguments against including it seem to be the following: Firstly, it does not meet the Wikipedia:Verifiability standards. Secondly, it is not notable enough, and should therefore not be included in an encyclopedia. Now let's see...
·The fact that there was a raid is hardly disputable. In fact, here's a video of it: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ipACsinKe0Y. Various other videos exist on YouTube with the famous raid, and also other smaller ones. Therefore, the event is perfectly verifiable and is not a result of original research. Okay.
·I don't think one can rightfully argue that the event is not big enough to be included in the Habbo Hotel article. First of all, it was organized: a site was created for the specific purpose of directing people to the attack and making it easier (www.poolsclosed.com), not to mention a hacking tool made fo the specific use of trolling (PoolTool) and private documents that were to be available only to the Habbo moderators that were leaked and made publically available can be found there (http://www.poolsclosed.com/viewtopic.php?t=105). Secondly, one only has to google "habbo raid" to see that it is widely known and talked about (here are some random links from various unrelated sites: http://www.digg.com/videos_comedy/GIGANTIC_Habbo_Troll_Raid,  http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=525516, http://www.shoujoai.com/forum/topic_show.pl?tid=36010 and others). The very fact that it takes up 90% of the talk page should be enough, too... It was also a first for Habbo Hotel, and the mods were unable to act properly (leading to further chaos; "raids" are still going on regularly and many innocents are occasionally banned).
The above lead me to see the purposeful exclusion of the event from the article as being against wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. 212.205.213.78 00:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look in the archives. Mentioned many times.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually mentioned it after the July raid below, where I said "Because it's neither encyclopedic or newsorthy and no one cares." lulz. 4chan van! (^_^) - Hahnchen 23:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "...and no one cares." <--Ahem. Please avoid flaws in logic.  Also, it was referenced on at least four counts.  The sources included numerous screenshots, including one of a mod banning a blockader, citing the reason as "raiding." You can't prove its nonexistance/nonsignificance.  Heck, the raids are more popular than some of the games in the same section of the article.--Dch111 21:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seicer, this thread is an attempt to reply at the concerns raised at the archives, not to mention that the archives are too full of mindless trolling to go through. If you have a reason why this should not be included after having read this whole thread, please say so and don't just remove stuff without mentioning anything. (The "it's neither encyclopedic or newsorthy and no one cares" part is covered on this very thread too, not to mention it's merely a POV). To be perfectly honest, I can't understand some people's dedication to making sure this info doesn't reach the light of day. And please, for the last time, don't just silently remove things from the article, that's common sense. Thanks. 85.75.89.227 19:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: With sources that fail WP:EL.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seicer said, "With sources that fail".  I believe he is saying the raids' sources were a massive FAIL and perhaps the raid was a FAIL, too.  Anomo 06:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: the raid pretty much happened because the websites which organized it generally think this of Habbo Hotel: (1) it's a massive goodie-two-shoes community with kids aged 13 years or younger, making them easy targets for shock-value jokes and such [AIDS in the pool, anti-Semitism statements, standing in a swastika formation, and generally trying to be as offensive as possible], and (2) the general website is laughable to people older than the average Habbo user, since it's basically just a chatroom with cute characters, and (3) its just fun to cause chaos [blocking the pool, blocking people from entering the room, grossly overpopulating the rooms] in that type of hip pre-teen enviroment. Then when the mods started banning people simply because they dressed in a suit, were of black ethnicity, and had an afro, and when said user wasn't really doing anything wrong [but were just automatically associated with the chaos the character has come to represent], there has been a notion that the Moderators of Habbo Hotel are racist, and just ban any black guy in a suit with a fro without valid reason, and another reason for the raids occasionally is to protest the Mod's blatent racisism. To sum it up in one sentence: it's just really, really fun to inflict as much chaos as possible to the website. It's nothing personal. ARBlackwood 03:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is really just the philosophy of the site that started it all, 4chan. They "raid" many places besides Habbo (Girltalk/Tom Green for example), it's just that the particular "raids" have become the most popular/big.85.75.93.154 13:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, it was not 4chan that started the raids. The credit should go to Hezzy of the OIFY (Facepunch studios) which started raids before 4chan. Several pool blocking raids occured before someone posted the idea on 4chan. Habbo raid rooms were set up, and if there was some way to check the records this would prove this. 4chan took ovber the raids and made it a success, but all in all OIFY started it. And it was damn fun whilst it lasted. --80.42.94.192 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're still going on occasionally, though 87.202.26.254 21:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wait, it was HEZZY that started this?? I have lost all respect for those retards. Shady Tree Man 04:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe Hezzy started some raids, but 4chan started the raids. --Dch111 21:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to interject something; while I am a browser of Yotsuba, I wasn't aware of this "Great Habbo Hotel Raid" until today, though the phrase "POOL'S CLOSED" has become so infamous it is being used in other communication venues (id est, forums) without knowledge of where the term came from. Thus, while Wikipedia might need to hammer out the details and cite serious sources, the existence of this raid, how it affected the running of Habbo Hotel, and its influence on other communities are of note and are deserving some mention in Wikipedia. I myself was disappointed that I had to learn about this event through various scattered, ambiguous, and incomprehensible sources; it would have been a far less taxing chore to have simple read up on the event through Wikipedia. Terek 01:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Protip, saying Yotsuba makes you sound like a weeaboo. And ED used to explain it well. (just checked and it went back to lulz format.) Vkeios 05:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The infamous Habbo Raid