Talk:RealGM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 7th May 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Anyway we can get a screenshot of the site on here? Sportsandweatherfreak 21:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This page should be deleted. Everyone is just messing around with it. Plus, does a forum really belong on Wikipedia?

IT IS A WEBSITE Sportsandweatherfreak 21:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I messed up the 5th reference. Can anyone fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.110.68 (talk • contribs)

I can't quite tell what you were going for. I removed the text that was breaking the citation code and replaced it with a citation needed template. Let me know if there is something else I can do to help. Stardust8212 14:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forums

Realgm has experienced a great deal of trouble in dealing with its volunteer legion of message board moderators. Moderators have caused numerous problems, including exacting personal vendettas against other posters, using moderator powers to promote a particular political agenda, and generally being careless and flippant in their disciplinary practices.

The above paragaraph is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article on this topic. It is no attributed to a reliable source and as such appears to original research on the part of the anonymous editor who continues to add it back into the article. Beyond that it is also a problem that nearly every message board that has ever existed has claimed to have and for that reason is not a notable item of interest. I'm removing it again, if someone sees a good reason to leave it in the article please discuss it here. Stardust8212 12:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Look up any organization, company, individual, book, movie, article, etc., and you will find that the controversies surrounding the same are an integral part of its encyclopedic entry. It need not be attributed to any "source." As you may or may not have noticed, dozens of people have supported the claim by fixing your persistent vandalism. It is not a problem of "nearly every message board that has ever existed." If that is your take on it, than you are woefully uneducated as to the happenings of realgm, and therefore, not qualified to comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.66.24 (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedias core policies include verifiability and citing reliable sources. Your claim that the information doesn't need to be attributed to a source is not in line with Wikipedia policy. Controversies are only notable and worthy of inclusion if they have been written about by a reliable source. Also please don't make claims that my good faith efforts are vandalism, it is very insulting. If you provide a source that meets Wikipedia's standards I would be more than happy to include this piece of information in the article. Stardust8212 01:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that if this quote is to stay then there should be sources found to back it up, or else it should be removed, particularly as it does provide a negative aspect of RealGM. The sources should no be forums, and instead should be reliable sources to back up the claims. Also, the way it is written at present, isn't very neutral so if it is to be kept, it should be re-written to meet our neutral point of view policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What type of sources are you looking for? This is an internet sports forum. Not exactly the type of thing that newspapers write about. But that doesn't make it any less true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.66.24 (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

For information on what is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards consider reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It might not be mentioned in any reliable sources which would indicate that this is not a notable aspect of RealGM, this is what I was trying to express in my original comments. Also remember that Wikipedia isn't always about saying everything that is true about a topic, or to quote Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Stardust8212 21:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It is continually being added by someone who was removed from the forums, probably someone by the name of Majorleads. FancyPants 00:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. And, I might add, irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.66.24 (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessarily irrelevant if it constitues a conflict of interest on the user's part. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for someone to come when they have an axe to grind. Stardust8212 18:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Nba-header.gif

Image:Nba-header.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)