Talk:GameFAQs/Archive 2

message: Given that a dozen or so links were removed from the External Links section recently for not being official or whatever, should the two that were added today be kept? Fik 15:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Secondary FAQ isn't official, either.  I personally think the Board 8 Wiki is the epitome of ridiculous gameboard cruft, but I do like WikiFAQs.  I really don't know. - Hbdragon88 03:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Board 8 Wiki shouldn't be there, but the Secondary FAQ and WikiFAQs are certainly helpful links. They don't have to be "official" to be linked. --Scottie theNerd 09:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links? 

message: StrategyWiki is a wiki that has very similar goals to GameFAQs, with the addition of a few more--wiki format, markup, screenshots and other images, guides divided into chapters, single guides per game, multiple editors, GFDL, etc. All of Wikibooks' game guides are in fact being moved to StrategyWiki  since Jimbo doesn't want them there anymore, so StrategyWiki is getting some good visibility on Wikibooks. I am wondering if you would voice opposition to having StrategyWiki added as an external link here? Several game articles already link to their corresponding StrategyWiki guide. I'm going to go ahead and add the link here, but if it raises any concern as to relevancy let me know. --echelon talk 08:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm under the impression that the External Links should only be directly related to the article rather than advertising similar sites. Since we don't even have GameFAQs' sister site under external links (which is practically the same thing), I don't see why we should include a link to a site that has nothing to do with GameFAQs. --Scottie theNerd 09:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It smacks a bit of advertising.  Would we put a link to pepsi in the external links on the Coca-Cola page? Hiding The wikipedian meme 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This is blatant advertising. I have killed it. 164.107.197.49 07:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  StrategyWiki external link? 

message: Okay, who's the joker who vandalized the front page?
:It happens, thanks for fixing it though! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pornographic 

message: Sometimes he is referred to as "Veasey" (real name) and sometimes "CJayC" (screen name).  I think it would look a bit neater if one name was used consistently. 167.206.128.33 16:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I chose to use CJayC rather than Veasey. Changes made. 164.107.197.49 04:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different names are used for the webmaster. 

message: Article is too short and provides no useful information. GameFAQs article provides a far more relevant and comprehensive guide to GameFAQs as well as CJayC's ownership. Seeing how as we don't know much about CJayC at all, I suggest we redirect this article to GameFAQs. --Scottie theNerd 05:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, entirely. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. This article is about CJayC, not GameFAQs. I believe CJayC had worked on some other Internet projects in the past, not just GameFAQs. CJayC does not equal GameFAQs, and he deserves his own article, just like LUEshi. --Facto 06:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, merger proposals should be listed at the top of each page per the Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages guideline. --Facto 06:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that practically nothing is known about CJayC outside of GameFAQs, with the only claim to fame being his formation and administration of the site. Little else about Veasey is notable or verifiable as far as we can tell. If you can find out more about CJayC, then by all means we'll expand on this article. Conversely, LUEshi shouldn't get its own article IMHO, but as it now represents multiple communities spawned from GameFAQs, it has arguably earned its place. CJayC, on the other hand, is restricted to GameFAQs unless he's the head of some charity that we've never heard of. Additionally, compare eBaum's World founder Eric Baumann, who is far more notable than Veasey but doesn't get his own page due to his fame being solely to do with his site. --Scottie theNerd 08:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with merge. CJayC has no other known web projects, no public pics exist of him, and besides for random bits of private info like his address/number/whatever, nothing is known of his private life. 172.165.250.81 18:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree--Toffile 18:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Why was the karma section that I made deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.33.77.83 (talk • contribs).
:Karma is already explained here. I didn't think we really needed it in two places. -- Steel 21:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karma 

message: I highly doubt if we can procure any reliable sources for this section.  Better to remove it entirely.  I would also like to get some sources for the GameFAX thing - Insder took down the GameFAQs Archive and it still istn'b ack up. Hbdragon88 04:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GameFAQs chat 

message: *The Administrative Staff section can be moved here no problem.
*Listing a million and one boards is unnecessary. Cut those lists out and just have one paragraph in this article on the different types of message board (Site, social, etc). A (short) paragraph on user levels and karma might be a good idea.
*Maybe give LUE a subsection to itself considering stuff like LUEshi is apparently notable enough to have its own article.
*I'm not entirely sure we need to go to town on Spinoff website either.
Assuming nobody has any major objections to this I'll get to work on it in a couple of days. -- Steel 11:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no real need to have separate articles for Gfaqs and the message boards. It's not as if the GameFAQs article is so long that it needs to be split. -- Steel 22:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Steel. Much of the GameFAQs message boards article contains unnecessary details, and GF already has its own Wikis (emphasise the plural) to cover that information. Currently, the article only serves as a hotbed of vandalism. --Scottie theNerd 01:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with the merge proposal. The main site and the boards are big enough entities by themselves to warrant having two articles. Work on cleaning up the main article, not mashing them together for no reason. --- 164.107.252.198 01:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: The boards are big, but they are not notable enough to warrant an independent article. The information contained in the message board article is essentially a list of minute details that can be summarised in one or two paragraphs in the main article. GameFAQs' message boards alone are not worthy of an article. --Scottie theNerd 08:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And it's done. That's what I think the message board article can be cut down to. Someone needs to go clear up some poor wording, mind. -- Steel 13:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. --Scottie theNerd 13:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Nevermind my previous comment. The only way we'll get this to good article status is to get this stuff together properly. --- 164.107.252.198 03:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You can probably get rid of it. I don't see a point in having it. --- RockMFR 17:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: When we had a separate message boards article, I believe it was cut out because it was already included in GameFAQs' help files, and places like the Secondary Boards FAQ (in the external links) document the new levels. --- RockMFR 17:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Aye. A Wikipedia article is not meant to repeat what is already in the Help files. It's an informative page, not a reference page. The fact that people actually come to Wikipedia to check user levels is quite sad when they're easily accessible on the site. --Scottie theNerd 01:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[GameFAQs message boards]] 

message: I'm re-adding the contest section again. It is a large part of the site. Stop being a dick, steel. --- 164.107.252.198 14:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: m:Don't be a dick. At any rate, that section is needless trivia. I'd rather not get into a revert war over it, to be honest. -- Steel 15:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, if the contests are a large part of the site (which is debatable), it would be much better to write a paragraph on them, rather than just having those pointless lists which don't have any explanation and at present don't mean anything. We don't need to list the outcome of every contest any more than we need to list every message board. -- Steel 11:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contest Section 

message: Yes, this site is going to be difficult to source. There is nothing publicly available on luelinks.net that tells anything about it, but luckily we have archive.org to help us get some old primary sources. The old registration page is exactly what is needed for the reference. --- 164.107.252.198 01:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But what does it prove?  It's just a reg page.  It doesn't support the claim that LL is the most popular spinoff? Hbdragon88 02:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, seriously, what claim are you talking about? "Most popular spinoff"? Don't see that in the revision.... Reverting again. --- 164.107.252.198 07:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry.  But there's a massive list of spinoffs that you could write down, it isn't fair to simply list LL and leave the others in the dust.  Leave it at the GFH source code and keep the potential laundry list out. Hbdragon88 16:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LL is notable. Your own personal websites are not. It's staying in, chum. --- 164.107.252.198 04:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: XD. Whatever. Someone else will just end up removing that long list of crap. --- 164.107.252.198 05:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: LL is more well-known and popular than any other spinoff EVER. While we are currently unable to actually cite this, it is still something the editors of this article know. Hence, it is included. --- 164.107.252.198 04:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If only the "editors of this article" know about it, that's not good enough for inclusion into Wikipedia.  Never mind you completely ignore the reasons why other spinoffs have their own claims for notability. Hbdragon88 04:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate source of information.  Whatever we list has to have a reason why it's listed.  We have links to every GF board (53,000 of them), but they're not included because they don't have any claim to notability.  As for LL and sources in general, I don't think any reliable sources do exist.  GFH is about the only one that Veasey has associated himself with.  Anecdotally, personally, I agree that LL is very popular.  But there aren't any reliable sources.  Good Articles require good sources.  If it's in doubt, throw it out.  You say that it should be added because you can personally assert it, that you could turn out sources.  I think everything should be left out until good sources can back it up. Hbdragon88 00:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Relevent to its notability...what is cited now is just a fact and does not establish notability.  Also, read below that, it says: subject to verification by other sources, which that fact has not been.  It also cautions  that In general, if a self-published source is reliable, then other reliable sources will cite it, until then, it should be avoided..  I'll report it for now as the "POV of the publisher". Hbdragon88 04:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LUElinks 

message: This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :
:1. Well written? Pass
:2. Factually accurate? Pass
:3. Broad in coverage? Pass
:4. Neutral point of view? Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images? Fail (please give a fair use rationale for :Image:Gflogo222.GIF
Additional comments :
*  I wonder if the Contests section is necessary or is notable enough, please enlighten me.
Lincher 21:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a fair use rationale for that image. First time I've done so, so someone else might want to add their expertise on the matter. --- 164.107.252.198 01:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The contests are at the very least a popular topic of discussion. Not just on GameFAQs, but on other websites. Penny Arcade used to have a strip that was about the contest, though it's disappeared for reasons unknown. (The original newspost is here.)--Toffile 17:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2002/20020823h.gif --- 164.107.252.198 18:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Maybe you should register an account...it doesn't give away your IP info. (I'm being serious here, as I know who you are, and I won't mention the name for privacy reasons.)--Toffile 01:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Being an anon adds fun to Wiki. Nobody takes me seriously :P *is RockMFR* --- 164.107.252.198 02:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know. The host resolves to Ohio State's resnet. I wonder if you go to to OSU...--Toffile 02:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yay! --- 164.107.252.198 18:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Cool.--Toffile 01:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: GA awarded ... congrats. Lincher 17:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! --- 164.107.252.198 18:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Cool.--Toffile 01:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA status

message: Now when I go to gamefaqs there is a ad page before I can access the main site.  Somebody should find when it started and put it under history.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.31.90.25 (talk) .
:I've never seen that myself, but it's not significant. --Scottie theNerd 04:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: Is the current version of the logo cropped well? Should I crop the gray sidebars off of the screenshot? Are there any other images that might be appropriate for the article? --- RockMFR 23:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The logo needs less cropping on the sides - there should be blue-space around the entire logo.  The grey sidebars in the screenshot should stay, since they are part of the layout of the site which everyone sees by default.  Perhaps screenshots from before the redesign should be included, preferably one that depicts the main index page, as the current screenshot does. FireCrotchRIO 08:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I finally managed to get accurate proof that moderators and admins on GameFaqs. I'm going to create a Criticisms section with Power Abusage as the first article. If anyone wants to add other criticisms in this section, let me know and I'll try keep mine short so that it doesn't take to much space. Duhman0009 21:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I trust this is going to be a neutral account of "power abuse" written using reliable sources and without any personal opinions? -- Steel 21:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I can stay neutral, but like it or not, it's pretty much with my GameFaqs account. I used myself as bait, went through all the contesting and saved the page on my HD. Duhman0009 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This should be interesting. --Scottie theNerd 21:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what sense do you say this? Duhman0009 21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:NOR.  Original research isn't allowed on Wikipedia.  If you can find a independent, reputable source, then it might be usable.  Otherwise, it can't be used.  --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well actually, I just plan to state that there is Power Abusage and then provide a link for a website which I will make that will show something better than a reputable source, it's picture proof. Duhman0009 01:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...you might want to read the Wikipedia policy links already provided. Picture proof? Original research, and most likely inaccurate or fabricated. --Scottie theNerd 01:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So without knowing me and without seeing what I'm about to show, you're already calling me a liar. Duhman0009 02:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at your archive discussion pages, it appears that you have a tendency to rely on your opinion rather than verifiable fact. Additionally, what you are doing isn't new; others have made similar, unsupported claims. I'm not calling you a liar, but as part of the GameFAQs staff, I already know what "evidence" you might have proves nothing, nor does it fulfill Wikipedia policy. If you like to prove me wrong, please do so. --Scottie theNerd 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since you already know what it is, why not share it with everyone? Also, you do realize that by stating that you are part of the GameFaqs staff, that you are admitting to a conflict of interest, so your opinion in anything should not count. Duhman0009 02:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless you've got a copy of a Federal Enquiry into Moderator activity on GameFAQs, you've basically got nothing. --Scottie theNerd 01:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well now you're quick to defend your possible guilty actions (mods don't leaves their names on GameFaqs, so it could be you). And no, since I'm not part of the GameFaqs staff, my word in this does count. Also, by your logic, if you were to take a picture of a crime in progress, it would not be a reliable source because you're just a single individual. I wasn't gonna state that GameFaqs Mods are power abusers without conclusive proof of an actual event that took place. Seems to me like you hang out here to make sure that people keep quiet about these sort of things. Duhman0009 02:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you're making personal accusations. You're doing big favours for yourself here. Keep in mind that a crime scene investigation is different from gathering sources for an encyclopedic article. Police investigations require first-hand evidence, not credible sources. Writing encyclopedic articles or essays requires the opposite. Again, read the Wikipedia guidelines. If you cannot verify your criticisms, you have no case. This has nothing to do with my status on GameFAQs, and again, since you're the one doing your own experiments, you have no conclusive proof either way. --Scottie theNerd 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tisk, tisk tisk, I said posssible actions, that's not a direct accusation. Now first of all, if Wikipedia wants to consider itself a real encyclopedia, it needs to drop a lot of content from pop-culture, GameFaqs is one of them. You wouldn't find an article on a web site like GameFaqs or an article from a video game title in a real  encyclopedia. The simple fact that Wikipedia is accepting these sort of things means that they need to be open minded to others. Also, what would stop me from making that website that I was talking about and have someone else use it to add a Criticisms section on GameFaqs' Wiki page? It would no longer be personal research since it would be my work used by someone else. Duhman0009 02:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh that, ya sorry, I thought you were talking about the "possible guilty actions" thing. Ya, the "hanging to keep these things quiet", that I totally accuse you of it, I mean who wouldn't after all the text you typed to defend GameFaqs.Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And I'm talking about the fact that if I make add a section to GameFaqs' Wiki page, that you'll be the first one to reverse it, that's why I bring the conflict of interest in this.Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Dude, that's like saying "because you're not part of the mafia, you can't prove that we're committing crimes." Any sort of negative reviews will come from outside a company, like a reporter that witnesses something and reports on it. I'm doing the same thing, I witness something and I plan to report on it. Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, it's the opposite. I was saying that if someone else decides to add a Criticism section and use my work for references. Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I still don't recall seeing an article about the Terminator in a real encyclopedia or one on the Nintendo 64 and those are old enough to be in there and not have any sudden changes. Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Gonna be a while before Wikipedia is viewed as a real encyclopedia by the people that matter, so ya, I guess it might as well have anything pop-culture related to differ itself. Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah man, now I'm really sure that you're not part of the mods that took part in the event. Man, you wouldn't believe what went on in there! You probably have access to my account, go take a look Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Scanned it quickly few months ago, don't care much about it, I prefer coming here to talk to people about changing things and voting on it. Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Is that an order? Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't need to be in the Mafia to understand the law. However, you need to be in the Mafia in order to know how the Mafia works. In regards to your research: your research is not credible. What's so hard to understand about that? It doesn't matter who uses it; it doesn't make your research any more legitimate. Again, I am not defending GameFAQs, I am merely pointing out Wikipedia policies. If you do not adhere to the policies, your edits will be removed regardless. I assure you, friend, I am the least of your problems. Since you admit that you haven't bothered reading the Wikipedia editing guidelines, that brings this discussion to an end. This isn't about GameFAQs, this is about Wikipedia. If you want to argue about Wikipedia, go talk to Jimbo Wales. I have tried being civil with you, but since you're doing little but arguing superficial points instead of addressing the concerns the editors expressed above, I see no further use for this discussion. --Scottie theNerd 03:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And what would that achieve? --Scottie_theNerd 01:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Punch a few more holes in his argument? -- Jelly Soup 06:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wouldn't achieve anything. Pictures can be doctored. Dskzero 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms, Moderators and Admins Power Abusage 

message: Hang on a second here. I just read your method under Steel's comment:
"Well I can stay neutral, but like it or not, it's pretty much with my GameFaqs account. I used myself as bait, went through all the contesting and saved the page on my HD." 
In other words, you've done original research, but not only that, you're using yourself as the "test specimen". Not only is this against Wikipedia policy, but it is also poor research; you're using one example, and your own example, as a criticism for a whole site? Furthermore, you are not a credible source either. Make a Criticism section, and it will be immediately reverted as per Wikipedia policies mentioned above.
Now, you have just claimed that because I am part of the GameFAQs moderation staff, my opinion should not count. However, you are using yourself as "bait" to gather "evidence" to "prove" a point you want to prove and not what is actual truth. Therefore, since you are your own test subject, I could equally claim that your opinion should not count. In fact, that's what I will assert: if you make an edit, make sure that your information is verifiable and not your own opinion as already stated above. You came into this idea with your own opinion, and you went out to get evidence to make sure your opinion looked substantial. You have not researched anything other than your own opinion.
In short, drop the idea entirely before the rest of the editors mob you. If you're going to do original research, learn the difference between fact and opinion. --Scottie theNerd 02:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well now you're quick to defend your possible guilty actions (mods don't leaves their names on GameFaqs, so it could be you). And no, since I'm not part of the GameFaqs staff, my word in this does count. Also, by your logic, if you were to take a picture of a crime in progress, it would not be a reliable source because you're just a single individual. I wasn't gonna state that GameFaqs Mods are power abusers without conclusive proof of an actual event that took place. Seems to me like you hang out here to make sure that people keep quiet about these sort of things. Duhman0009 02:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you're making personal accusations. You're doing big favours for yourself here. Keep in mind that a crime scene investigation is different from gathering sources for an encyclopedic article. Police investigations require first-hand evidence, not credible sources. Writing encyclopedic articles or essays requires the opposite. Again, read the Wikipedia guidelines. If you cannot verify your criticisms, you have no case. This has nothing to do with my status on GameFAQs, and again, since you're the one doing your own experiments, you have no conclusive proof either way. --Scottie theNerd 02:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tisk, tisk tisk, I said posssible actions, that's not a direct accusation. Now first of all, if Wikipedia wants to consider itself a real encyclopedia, it needs to drop a lot of content from pop-culture, GameFaqs is one of them. You wouldn't find an article on a web site like GameFaqs or an article from a video game title in a real  encyclopedia. The simple fact that Wikipedia is accepting these sort of things means that they need to be open minded to others. Also, what would stop me from making that website that I was talking about and have someone else use it to add a Criticisms section on GameFaqs' Wiki page? It would no longer be personal research since it would be my work used by someone else. Duhman0009 02:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh that, ya sorry, I thought you were talking about the "possible guilty actions" thing. Ya, the "hanging to keep these things quiet", that I totally accuse you of it, I mean who wouldn't after all the text you typed to defend GameFaqs.Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And I'm talking about the fact that if I make add a section to GameFaqs' Wiki page, that you'll be the first one to reverse it, that's why I bring the conflict of interest in this.Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Dude, that's like saying "because you're not part of the mafia, you can't prove that we're committing crimes." Any sort of negative reviews will come from outside a company, like a reporter that witnesses something and reports on it. I'm doing the same thing, I witness something and I plan to report on it. Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, it's the opposite. I was saying that if someone else decides to add a Criticism section and use my work for references. Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I still don't recall seeing an article about the Terminator in a real encyclopedia or one on the Nintendo 64 and those are old enough to be in there and not have any sudden changes. Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Gonna be a while before Wikipedia is viewed as a real encyclopedia by the people that matter, so ya, I guess it might as well have anything pop-culture related to differ itself. Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah man, now I'm really sure that you're not part of the mods that took part in the event. Man, you wouldn't believe what went on in there! You probably have access to my account, go take a look Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Scanned it quickly few months ago, don't care much about it, I prefer coming here to talk to people about changing things and voting on it. Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Is that an order? Duhman0009 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't need to be in the Mafia to understand the law. However, you need to be in the Mafia in order to know how the Mafia works. In regards to your research: your research is not credible. What's so hard to understand about that? It doesn't matter who uses it; it doesn't make your research any more legitimate. Again, I am not defending GameFAQs, I am merely pointing out Wikipedia policies. If you do not adhere to the policies, your edits will be removed regardless. I assure you, friend, I am the least of your problems. Since you admit that you haven't bothered reading the Wikipedia editing guidelines, that brings this discussion to an end. This isn't about GameFAQs, this is about Wikipedia. If you want to argue about Wikipedia, go talk to Jimbo Wales. I have tried being civil with you, but since you're doing little but arguing superficial points instead of addressing the concerns the editors expressed above, I see no further use for this discussion. --Scottie theNerd 03:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And what would that achieve? --Scottie_theNerd 01:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Punch a few more holes in his argument? -- Jelly Soup 06:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wouldn't achieve anything. Pictures can be doctored. Dskzero 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: Didn't GameFAQs used to be called SegaSages, which was renamed to GameSages, and then to GameFAQs? This all would've been 10+ years ago. I'm not thinking of a different site, am I? Sean K 13:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SegaSages was bought by IGN and was incorporated into cheats.ign.com, if I recall correctly. --- RockMFR 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: GameSages and GameFAQs were different sites. --Scottie theNerd 00:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original name of site 

message: I think this article may have the potential to attain FA status. This will also send some much-needed ripples through the Community, stating that message board sources are adequete in certain situations. — Deckiller 19:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The FAC process will literally kill the article because of its soft message board sources.  I still have issues with LUElinks being the only spinoff listed (as it is a self-published source), but if that was removed, the Spinoff section would be a trivial note.  Also, I believe that there has been some warring over whether the contests section should be retained or not. Perhaps it might be FA...just throwing out some current issues that this article has had. Hbdragon88 22:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Like I said, there's plenty of potential here — we just have to keep things in perspective and work on the issues one at a time. I'd be willing to help out some more. — Deckiller 05:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There just aren't enough secondary sources to get this to FA status, in my opinion. Adding content to this article will be very difficult (let alone keeping all the content it currently has). However, current content disputes are trivial. The inclusion of the contests section has only been argued against by one editor, and the LUElinks issue will probably never die :) --- RockMFR 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually seen articles with less available secondary sources reach FA status, such as Diary of a Camper. It's possible, albeit improbably right now :) — Deckiller 16:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Cropped version of the main page, with the GameFAQs logo as the main focus. --Scottie theNerd 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've never cared for the contest section as it is myself, but I am impressed with the way the article has grown and the merging of LUEshi and the message board pages.  I think it's a good article now and think you should have a go at FA status, although maybe push through peer review first.  Well done to all who have worked on it so far. I've just added a bit detailing the mention in The Guardian.  Saw that and thought I'd drop back in to add it. Hiding Talk 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Future FA push

message: I continue to be amused at the number of anonymous users who always erase the LUElinks section or claim that it doesn't exist. Hbdragon88 03:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I see it, the mention of LUElinks shouldn't be part of the article on the grounds that citable information on that site is rather difficult (If not impossible.) to obtain.  True, we have a cited userbase estimation from Oct. 2004 but I think such dated information shouldn't be included at all.  Just my 2 cents on the issue. Sephirothson 21:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Going by that logic, we wouldn't have an article about Jesus... or Dell Dude! :) --- RockMFR 23:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um what?  Dell Dude has lots much coverage from multiple non-trivial sources.  Jesus...he had a lot of disciples with him, whom wrote about him.  Both surely qualify under WP:BIO. Hbdragon88 01:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was making a joke about the use of dated information... --- RockMFR 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, gotcha. Hbdragon88 01:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You do have a point.  I guess it's not doing any harm by being there so in the end, I really don't care too much as to what happens with the LUElinks section.  I'll let someone else fight that battle.  ~ Sephirothson 04:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LUElinks again 

message: I wanted to put this to rest once and for all. It's always bothered me ever since it first came up.
Back in March of this year, a ton of material was removed from this article  due to belief that a significant portion of the article was copy and pasted from here . I've been going through the old edit history and found some substantial proof that in fact, Wikipedia was the source of the info that ended up on GameFAQsInfo.net. The original text was created during this edit , and significant changes were made to that text later on in this edit . The copyedits made on Wikipedia can be found within the version on GameFAQsInfo.net, which is pretty good proof that there was never a copyvio issue with this article. --- RockMFR 04:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't care about re-adding the text. The useful information in it is already in the current version. --- RockMFR 17:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old copyvio allegation 

message: I know it has nothing to do with the article, but everytime I try to go on the message boards(note not the list of message boards, but the boards themselves) a bunch of coding and foreign language pops up. Is this an issue with the site or is it just a bad connection I have at the moment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SnakePlane789 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone else have this problem? 

message: You know, like the pro wrestling board and what usually happens there or its history or the TV board? I am just asking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SnakePlane789 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, none of them are notable enough outside of GameFAQs. Unless some of them have received a significant amount of coverage with reliable sources. Koweja 01:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe we can say some of the more popular ones in 1 sentence, but certianly not a paragraph on them, not notable enough.--Wizardman 18:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A section like this strikes me as a good place in insert a line about LUE/LUELinks (so we can finally bury this poor, beaten horse). -- Jelly Soup 06:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we have mini-articles for the Message Boards? 

message: Link: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,275310,00.html
I'm thinking we could eventually create a separate section for reviews and press coverage rather than dumping this stuff in the lead. And of course we then will need to make a decent lead. --- RockMFR 01:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just worked this into the lead. I don't think a separate section will be necessary for this, even though having unique information in the lead is a frequent criticism at WP:FAC. --- RockMFR 03:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entertainment Weekly review from 2000 

message: An image of LUEshi was recently added to the article. Should we have an image of LUEshi at all? If so, should it be an image of the original post, or should it just contain LUEshi without the rest of the post content? --- RockMFR 17:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so unless the brief mention of LUEshi can be expanded into, say, at least a paragraph or so.  I don't think that one mention in one sentence qualifies as the "critical commentary" needed to claim fair use.  In either case, just the LUEshi; we don't need the post. Hbdragon88 22:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not even sure it's necessary to illustrate LUEshi for the reader. A description of Mario riding Yoshi is ample, given that it's really not that critical to the article (despite what many LUEsers would say, I'm sure). Leebo86 05:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Two people does not a consensus make... keep the image in... the agreement when the article on LUEshi was deleted was that it should be merged into this article... deleting it sorta defeats the larger consensus there.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there was no consensus to merge anything from that article, and nothing was merged. The image was added long after the article was deleted. --- RockMFR 07:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Take that, LUEshi! Hbdragon88 02:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While it isn't necessary, it is helpful, so I am going to restore the image unless there are any objections.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LUEshi 

message: Why does Potd redirect to this page?
<P>Marco van Hulten 17:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the history of the page prior to the redirect. It was an article about one board on GameFAQs, so I decided to just redirect it here rather than bother with afd. --- RockMFR 18:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POTD redirects here 

message: I personally do not know much about the newly implimented RSS feeds but would it be worth it to add a paragraph, perhaps under "features", about this? -- Sephirothson 15:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSS Feeds 

message: Surely this article's "FAQs" section should be placed before the "Message boards" section, rather than after it? After all, the site was originally created as an archive of game guides rather than a discussion forum. No doubt these days many message board users spend more time browsing forums than reading the FAQs, but if you're a casual user looking for game information, you're likely to check the FAQs before asking other users.
I could be bold and move the section myself, but first I'd rather ask what other people reckon. --Nick RTalk 16:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't think the order really matters too much. --- RockMFR 20:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section sequencing 

message: I hear there are porn ads on GameFAQs now. *waits for it* --- RockMFR 20:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought CraCE (aka Jammer, IIRC) WAS porn ads.... Hbdragon88 01:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porn ads 

message: Is it me, or does Gamefaqs has no way for users to inquire as to why they were banned or contact administration in any way for any reason? 70.16.26.211 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/feedback/ --- RockMFR 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contact information 

message: Why does the "Battle Royal" link (http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/contest/cb5) in the Contests section link to the same place as "Character Battle V" which, as far as I can see, makes no mention of this poll? Or am I just not looking in the right place? QmunkE 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Battle Royal occurred at the end of Character Battle V and is briefly mentioned as "Battle Royale" on that page (the spelling is also a bit of an issue, but it's correct the way it is now). The results used to be listed there, too, but I guess the only way to see the results now is to check the individual poll pages. I guess it might make sense to remove the links to Battle Royal and Tournament of Champions as it might be a bit confusing to have two different links to the same pages. I guess the links are there now only for aesthetic reasons. --- RockMFR 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Battle Royal" link 

message: Some of GameFAQS' guides were created before GameFAQS itself. How was this possible? 124.180.66.13 10:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CJayC, when creating the Video Game FAQ Archive, took FAQs that were already in circulation at the time. The FAQs therefore pre-date the creation of GameFAQs as a site. --Scottie_theNerd 10:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weird

message: Guides that are incomplete and have not been edited for many years should be deleted, since it's sort of obvious that the guide creator will never edit that guide again. And completed guides that have not been edited for a long time or that belong to dead users should be finalised. What do you guys think about these options? What is the longest time an incomplete guide has not been edited? And what is the longest time between two edits of a guide? 124.180.66.13 10:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with the article. --Scottie_theNerd 10:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Something else.

message: Can we get a non-character contest poll image of the front page?  The character contest isn't year-round, and more often it's a regular poll. Hbdragon88 04:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm partial to the current image because the contest isn't year-round, so it shows the reader a state of the site that they wouldn't normally see by clicking the URL (still assuming that most of our readers are reading this article online). Today probably wouldn't be a good day to get a new image anyways due to the whole April Fools thing going on. Either way, I don't think identification of the website (the main purpose of this image) is a concern. --- RockMFR 04:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Quite simply, it is not important. --- RockMFR 21:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Personally I thought you were going to revert my initial deletion of it (when Planetfreak posted the link), but really, it's unnecessary.  Whoever is reading this, stop trying to spam here.  Dbm11085 22:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GameFAQs 2 

message: The number of users at 7:51 Central time on May 6, 2007, is exactly 10643. This was found by multiplying 50 (the number of users on a page) by 212 (the number of pages of users), and adding the remaining users on page 213. This information was obtained from the LUELinks user list. This includes recently banned, suspended, sockpuppet, or unused accounts.
10643.
Scratch that, 11038. Thats the userid of the last person on the list.
discuss. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CompuHacker (talk • contribs) 00:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG 11038'?  Come hither, George Lucas!  There's really nothing to discuss, we don't need to state the # of users on LL.  In fact I still object to the inclusion of LL in the first place, but oh well I'll leave it (I'm not going to beat a dead horse). hbdragon88 01:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Usercount as of 5/6/2007 for LUELinks is equal to...