Talk:Point of Existence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 March 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 September 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 Added what they have completed 2 Deletion 3 Weasel words and references 4 Copyright issue

[edit] Added what they have completed

Alright I have added what they have completed for POE2 so please do not delete it. I put alot of effort in it and I will continue to add to it. Mathieu121 10:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

This is the second time this has happened.

Vote below? Living Ghost 00:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been published in mulitple publications and won awards, does that not satisfy the criteria? Living Ghost 00:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No because they need to be from reliable sources. You can always remove the prod if you wish. Whispering^(talk/c) 01:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again our hard work is being scrutinised on this so called free information site, I thought that the last time you people tried to do this you might have gotten it into your thick heads that we are a free modification for a retail game operating under a not-for-profit organisation, yet here you trying this BS again. Well here's the news, you can go ahead and delete the article because I will be asking our site staff to delete all links on the PoE site and forums that link to this page and the wikipedia site entirely because we simply will not stand for this elitist attitude that most of the people here have when it comes to pc game modifications. Sincerely, the PoE administration DrunkenPirate 10:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Like I said before you can always remove the prod. Whispering^(talk/c) 12:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is a FREE encyclopaedia, mmkay?? Meaning: not only open to would-be cultural snobs like yourself. Maybe the article could use a rewrite, but deletion? Don't think so... What a pathetic attitude. Nothing better to do then to troll around here? Get a hobby man.81.246.23.14 07:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So, numerous gaming magizines, are not enough for this to be an article? (Working on getting scans/links). What about ModDB? That isn't enough? Living Ghost 00:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So EA and Dice is not a reliable source? How about Fileplanet?

This must be some kind of joke if you want this deleted. This mod is extremly well known with thousands and thousands of fans. EA and Dice should be enough of a reliable source for you guys. Whats with the elitist attitude by these wiki people? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.91.119.118 (talk • contribs).

If this information page is not up to the high standards of these wiki elistists then fine by us, over 90,000 people in 120+ countries enjoy our work, yet 1 person here who probably hasn't even seen what we do decides our article has no place here.84.12.141.103 14:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So much effort I put into this article and even though its a non for profit free downloadble modification to a game that many many people are playing at this moment, then go right frigging ahead Wikipedia and delete it all will you. Lots of effort went into this page (including the finished products). But whatever. Mathieu121 17:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia have something like 70,000 other articles that have genuinely unreliable sources for their information that you could be fixing instead of picking on this one that is almost unanimously accepted as 100% truth?

[edit] Weasel words and references

In response to the comments left on my talk page, I am sorry I did not articulate my specific concerns here. The weasel template was added for this sentence in the introduction:

• "Widely believed to have a swift and reliable release history, the mod team gained a reputation for stability and professionalism that, for some, refined the community's interest in the mod."

Widely believed by whom? Who are these "some"? Please attribute this statement to a source or remove it. If the references are in the external links, then that should be specified. However, I have doubts that all of these sources are reliable. There are several other unsourced statements, such as the following:

• "The 'mod' team attempted to put an emphasis on informing the public on the inner workings of the mod."

I also added the plot cleanup template because most of this article consists of a storyline that would only be of interest to a very limited audience. Thanks. Khatru2 19:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

These I agree with. While I think most of the editors that have come around in this article are essentially lazy and want a whole lot of work done without doing it themselves, and bitch about no research and not doing the research themselves, these are some valid concerns. To anybody who wants to keep this article here, if you wanna step up to the plate I'll help you through the legitimate concerns about this article and you can use your familiarity with the mod to improve it. Thanks. 64.230.68.176 00:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Khatru2. That's exactly what i had in mind, I'll leave the templates for now you make some very good points. Thanks again. 69.124.143.230 00:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC) (yeah that was me on another comp)

I deleted those "weasel word" statements, and I wanted to source the 'The 'mod' team attempted to put an emphasis on informing the public on the inner workings of the mod, which can be seen by reading their news posts or browsing through the "Interactive Development Section."' line, but I was not sure how. News section: http://www.pointofexistence.com/forums/index.php?showforum=2 Interactive Dev Section(requires registration): http://www.pointofexistence.com/forums/index.php?showforum=10 . Thanks. Living Ghost 03:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issue

• I have removed the copy/pasted text from this page. In order to replace it there are 2 options:

• Rewrite the text using your own words, or...

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), you can comment to that effect here. Then you should do one of the following:

• Make a note on the original website that re-use is permitted under the GFDL and state it here where we can find that note; or
• Send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so here.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Wickethewok 13:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't the copyright holders give permission long, long ago? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.124.143.230 (talk • contribs).

• They didn't do either of the above things to my knowledge, so it would appear not. Wickethewok 18:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)