Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mana World

The Mana World

The Mana World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. Article describes an open-source MMORPG. However, the game does not appear to pass notability standards. The game was nominated for an award, but does not appear to have significant third party coverage beyond that. A Google search does not give any significant hits either, beyond the same advert blurb repeated on a number of different sites. TN‑X-Man 19:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the deletion of The Mana World article

• This article was market for deletion in first 10 minutes after being created, being in the stub state. Unless Tnxman307 is an expert in any software field, s/he shouldn't mark it for deletion while the the article is at its creation stage.
• The project has won much attention on one of biggest OSS colaboration sites (sourceforget.net) and is one of finalists of Community Choice Awards 2008 in prominent "Best Project for Gamers" category.

http://sourceforge.net/community/cca08-finalists

• The project is included in mainstream Linux distributions such as Ubuntu, Debian Arch Linux and Fedora.
• It is also one of very few MMORPG for UNIX-like operating systems.
• It high ratings at gaming and software distributions pages such as Linux Game Tome, Softopedia, Freshmeat, Linuxappfinder
• Why similar pages such as Eternal Lands are included in the Wikipedia?
• It is ranked 50 at top 100 MMORPG ranking http://www.mmorpg100.com/index.php?cat=2d%20mmorpg
• Exact phrase "The Mana World" typed in Google returns 55000 results - where most of them are about this project.
• What do TMW stands for? http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/TMW
• The game is described and recomended on:
  

- XFCE official website: http://wiki.xfce.org/games
- Gentoo Wiki http://gentoo-wiki.com/Software/Games
- Open SuSE site: http://tr.opensuse.org/Games
- Ubuntu Guide: http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Alternatives
- Fedora official website: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Games
and many other software sites over the Internet.

Therefore it is definately a notable software project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platyna (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note Platyna has been mostly involved with the article. There are a lot of assertions of notability (MMORPG100, Xfce). The Sourceforge ones should be mostly ignored. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 21:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The article says it all. 60 players online at any given time!?!? Kill it. Come back when it has a real fan base. Ray Yang (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Said comment are textbook examples of WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. MuZemike (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

First, that's an essay, not a guideline or policy. And, while it's undoubtedly true that in certain regimes numbers are not the sole determinant of quality, in other regimes they can fairly be said to be controlling. I offer three examples the numbers 0, 3000, and 6 billion. If the game is known to 0 people, it is not notable. If it is known to 6 billion people, even if it's the stupidest game ever devised in the rain on a Sunday afternoon, it is notable, if only because 6 billion people all know of it. If it's 3000 ... then that may depend and we go looking for quality sources. In the universe of MMORPGs, I regard 60 as being one hell of a lot closer to 0 than any intermediate regime. RayAYang (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interpreting what I referenced as guidelines or policies, but as noted common flaws in deletion discussions. MuZemike (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep — This article was created on 18:13, 13 July 2008 and nominated for deletion 19:06, 13 July 2008; nomination for AfD was also bot-assisted. Reasons for nomination is a textbook example of WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:IDONTKNOWIT, and judging by the quick nomination for deletion, WP:WHOCARES. In addition, if this is not a textbook example of Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, I don't know what is. (Surely no one expects a house to build itself in 45 minutes time.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuZemike (talk • contribs) 03:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, Afds like this are typically put out because it is called New Pages Patrol, not "three-day-old pages patrol". Nifboy (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps it should be called the latter, then, if we get a lot of articles that aren't given the chance to prove themselves. --Kizor 04:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• We do, but WP:CSD#A7 takes care of the bulk of them. Compared to quietly deleting it when the article creator isn't looking, I find it to be the lesser evil. Nifboy (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• But even the New Pages Patrol states that users should be hesitant to list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if there's a chance they could be improved and made into a meaningful article. Tag them for cleanup instead. Try not to step on people's toes. Many times, users will start an article as the briefest of stubs, and then expand it over the succeeding hours or days. If anything else, under this patrol, this should have put up as a candidate for speedy deletion. MuZemike (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete First, let's please stop derailing this AfD discussion. The nomination is grounded in policy and made in good faith. Attacking the nom's expediency or software expertise is neither. The amount of time that passes between creation and AfD is irrelevant if no reliable sources exist, and so far we don't have any (at least, not from the list Platyna posted above or in the article). By the deletion criteria, what we actually expect from a new article is not for it to be complete upon posting, but for its author to have written enough of a stub, either already referenced or with ready sources to be referenced, to prevent deletion nominations, like this one, for failing basic criteria. Sources that establish notability don't seem to exist for this article, and that is the actual policy question raised by the nom. AfD also lasts five days, during which sources can be found. The article is, therefore, given ample opportunity to prove notability, if the authors neglected to do so prior to creating the page. I am willing to change my vote if reliable sources are found. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

This game is recommended by many major Linux distribution projects on their MAIN PAGES (links are posted here), how come it is not enought to consider this project as significiant? And we have real fan base, it takes about 10 minutes to search Google at exact phrase "The Mana World" to find like 50 or more fan websites, listings etc. I may post them but it would be alot of links. Also I am unable to comprehend how the SF Community Choice Awards should be ignored if it is one of more important events in OSS software development. There are many pages such as Eternal Lands that doesn't have as much evidence of their importance as this project's page. Also, since where the Wikipedia is voting for deletion of stubs that are just being built after 10 minutes after their creation? Where is the free speech there? And a propos WP:GOOGLE hits: http://www.google.pl/search?hl=pl&q=The+Mana+World&btnG=Szukaj&lr= 350000 without exact phrase (Since this project is called The Mana World, TheManaWorld, TMW, Mana World etc.) 55000 with exact phrase "The Mana World" 15000 with exact phrase "TheManaWorld" 67000 with exact phrase "Mana World"

Also it is mentioned in most of free MMORPG for Linux topics in many software and gamers forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platyna (talk • contribs) 08:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It is also worth to note vast majority of these results is about this project.

Platyna (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep The reason there are no reliable sources is because the article was nominated for deletion less than an hour after it's creation. It has potential to become an article with decent sources. MuZemike was right on the money there, "Don't demolish the house while it's still being built". I could understand if this was nominated even a day after creation (although I still wouldn't agree with that as articles take days before they even become an acceptable stub), but less than an hour is just ridiculous. --.:Alex:. 08:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• It doesn't matter how long it takes to write the article, it has to establish notability. Delete. Andre (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no WP:DEADLINE on establishing notability and significance. My point is not about how long it takes to create an article, my point is that it's been only an hour since creation before being nominated for deletion. Yes, creating an article without first establishing such notability is not necessarily a good idea, but it is not a rule, and this seems very much a case of biting the newcomers. Newcomers aren't familiar with Wikipedia policies and judging by the users talk page, this user was informed about WP:RS and WP:N just 4 minutes before the article was nominated. This all seems extreme. I feel the article has potential, but this seems a case of someone planting a seed, and someone else digging it up in the afternoon. --.:Alex:. 09:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• You have seven days to improve it. That's more than the 1 day requested before bringing to AfD. If you've made it better after, say, 4 days (or even 7), leave a big bold note here saying that the votes above it refer to a different state of the article. Easy. —Giggy 09:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not very new user, however I am contributing to the Wikipedia when I feel fit. I have always avoided wars, but now I indeed feel there is an unjustice, since many articles about games are kept with even lesser proof of being significant. I am speaking on behalf this article especially as a Linux user, since there are not many games for Linux, especially fully open source, and the free open source MMMORPGs for Linux can be counted on one hand fingers. Wikipedia, as the Open Source project itself should underestand the need to provide information about well established Open Source software that gained much audience all over the Internet. I am very sad, that instead of improving the article I have to waste the time to discuss the sake of its existence, right after the article was created. I have posted enought evidence to prove the need to keep this article on the Wikipedia. Also while creating this article I was fully aware its quality is NOT YET at the level that would satisfy Wikipedia's requirements and mine, but well, AFAIK it is stub's right, since it is STUB not the ARTICLE. Platyna (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless made notable before AfD expiry. Fin©™ 11:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable game. The article seems like an excuse to list a collection of external links. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - My biggest concern when nominating this article was the lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Almost all of the Google results are for the same advertising blurb ("…a serious effort to create an innovative free and open source MMORPG…"). In my opinion, there was not enough coverage to meet WP:N. TN‑X-Man 11:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This project has been around since 2004 and has only been growing. It is also as far as I am aware unique in its kind. This is not the first time somebody took the time to write up an article about it on Wikipedia (see User talk:Dr Wahl, earlier this year). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjørn (talk • contribs) 14:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment/Disclosure: Bjørn's one of the developers, according to his user page. Also, the only edits he's made since March 2007 have been to this AfD and the article itself. Fin©™ 16:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - You are correct in stating that this article has been created once. However, the article was speedily deleted in January for failing to assert significance. TN‑X-Man 16:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with Bjørn EJlol (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment/Disclosure: EJlol's only contributions (2) have been to the article and this AfD. Fin©™ 16:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Can you explain the following to me: let's say I made 1.000.000 edits before I voted here, do you really think that would change my opinion? I do not think so. This project is unique in it's kind and deserves a wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EJlol (talk • contribs) 17:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this isn't a vote. Secondly, you should read this essay on single-purpose accounts. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Most of software sites copies introduction from the main page, it only speaks on the article behalf that so many sites wants to copy the game website and announce releases of the game client.

Comment/Disclosure: PS. Thank for the edit counters Falcon9x5, but I have made like thousand of editions to Polish and English Wikipedia as the IP, since it is dynamic and I am lazy to log in, and there are many other persons who logs in just to create new articles or participate in discussions, and they usualy don't have 31337 fancy edit counters on their user pages because their only concern is to contribute to the online community knowledge base not to pump their edit count. Not telling most of non-English users prefers to contribute to their local Wikipedia's (I am the author of Biology article on PL Wikipedia along with ALOT other Biology portal articles). Not to mention that I heard every vote counts the same in the Wikipedia votings. Platyna (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletions are not granted or denied by counting votes; they are granted or denied based on the merits of the arguments given. If there is no consensus, then the article is not deleted. MuZemike (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Notability has not been demonstrated with reliable sources unrelated to the project which cover the game in detail. None are coming up in a search. Waiting for a house to be built with materials not fit for purpose doesn't help anyone, the wrecking ball would still be used at some point and the building time between then and now would be wasted. Very open to switching to keep should some genuinely solid sources turn up, but the nature of the game itself, the sources presented here and the ones coming up in a search makes it extremely unlikely. Someoneanother 17:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment You can use the ubuntu popularity contest to compare the number of people who have installed the program on ubuntu linux machines http://popcon.ubuntu.com/. These numbers do not include people who play the game on windows or other linux distributions, the who compile their own client, nor the ubuntu linux users who have disabled the popularity contest, but I think they do allow you to compare one game from the List_of_open_source_games against others. Several games on the list appear to have less users than The Mana World. (DISCLAIMER: I sometimes play The Mana World) nielsle 14 July 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 17:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi, please actually read the two links posted by Someoneanother. It doesn't matter whether the game has millions of users or six or none at all. The existence of articles on Wikipedia is determined by the policies and guidelines explained in these two links, it's not just "notability" as in the common word "notability" found in dictionaries. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unless reliable sources are found by the conclusion of this AFD. The expectation of deletion criteria is not that articles will be completed on creation, but that they must be in at least a vaguely ok condition so as to fulfil the most basic criteria for inclusion. These include assertions of notability that may be backed up with reliable sources if contested. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles are expected to contain only information which may be justified, therefore any one of us may reasonably question any facet of information that is not explicitly justified with a reference to a reliable source. Articles which fail to do this may be deleted. If sources exist, then they may be added and the great majority of the delete comments (note I say comment not vote), if not all of them, will become keeps - including mine. As a number of contributors to this AFD are intimately associated with the project, they are surely well placed to identify third party references to the article subject, such as references in the mainstream gaming press. I would also like to point out that the reason for the objection on grounds of involvement with the project is that Wikipedia has a very clear guideline on conflicts of interest that affected editors may wish to read up on. See, when you have an imtimate association with an article then your objectivity in relation to that article's fulfilment of Wikipedia policy and guidelines may be compromised. A third party view and critque of an article's notability does not necessarily violate WP:IDONTKNOWIT and indeed is essential for objectivity. I have never heard of the article's subject, and I am questioning it's notability - I put it to those who know about it to prove to me that it has notability because I just don't see it. Please take advantage of this opportunity. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Let's just run through this, the poeople here who haven't heard of this are the people that spend their time patrolling wikipedia for edits, correct? So the only way you can gauge the "notability" (I use that loosely, see a comment near the end) is by using search engines. Thus the people that have heard of the game spend their time doing other activites and may have intertests in the fields in which the game is in (RPGs, Open source software etc), which would mean they have far more experience with regards to the "notability" of it. '...it's not just "notability" as in the common word "notability" found in dictionaries.' Awesome so people on wikipedia make their own meanings of words up, how nice. I would be stating Keep rather than Comment but since I am now a developer of this project (I was a loyal player for over a year before this, this also being the first and only RPG I have and do play.) you would obvious discredit my views, since this is not a democracy or any thing near it in fact. Regards Quiche on a leash (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The guidelines state: “The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"”. I fail to understand how software which, according to the developers’ own admission, is ‘pre-alpha’ can be described as ‘worthy of notice’.(User:Sher-righan 20:40 JUL 14 2008 (UTC))

It's worthy of notice because, its unique in it's kind AND its a SourceForge Community Choice Awards 2008 in prominent "Best Project for Gamers" category finalist. not to mention that the project is included in mainstream Linux distributions such as Ubuntu, Debian Arch Linux and Fedora. That the project is still in "pre-alpha" has nothing to do with it. "pre-alpha" means that it doesn't look right now as the end product, it says nothing about worthy of notice or not. EJlol (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment regarding "Notability" We are using the word Notability as defined by Wikipedia:Notability - and that is FINAL. End of discussion, if you disagree with that policy then this AFD is not the place to discuss that. Quiche on a Leash by the way I resent the accusation that I have no life because I happened to watch the AFD page, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Caissa, which policy are you referring to? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Er, Wikipedia: Notability as I linked to? I know it's only a guideline but the people who signed up purely for this AFD seem to be confused as to the definition of notability that is being applied here. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Megata. Let's not forget Wikipedia's 5th pillar: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Aside from official policy, nothing is final.

MuZemike (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • WP:IAR only applies when you can actually justify your stance - I posit that the subject of this article is not notable, I'm asking to be proven wrong. I don't believe there is good cause to ignore the notability guideline in this instance, and nobody saying keep here has demonstrated that there is. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify, I did post Delete above and I agree with Caissa. However, the debate is kind of heated so I think there's no need to exaggerate or magnify one's view by claiming that a guideline is a policy (for instance). Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Oops, hadn't noticed that. A simple error on my part, I do apologise.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no notability asserted through coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. An AfD of a recently created article is a pretty bad decision, but this game is clearly not notable. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Commentt. I would like to raise a few points concerning this AfD:
  • Some discussion above draws on numbers of people who know about or use the subject; but it doesn't matter if people "know" about something. Just because we all know something exists doesn't make it notable, what makes it notable is if it receives adequate verifiable sources that assert that notability. Where that cannot be easily found, we can turn to numbers as a rough yard-stick for whether or not verifable sources asserting notability 'could' be found. Note that rough yard-stick really is just that.
  • I entirely disagree with the concept that Wikipedia:Notability is final. This is a wikipedia, it is NEVER final by definition and that applies as much to policy and guidelines as it does to the very articles they try to protect. If such rules or policy prevent us from an improving an article we are to ignore those rules and policies and possibly seek their change.
  • The subject of the article was a finalist in a specialist community awards programme, that could be said to be one of the highest forms of recognition for an open-source project. Why someone would suggest that we should ignore sourceforge links does not make sense at all too me. We are applying commercial gaming standards to an open-source project, which does not help us make a quality, comprehenive record of video gaming in an encyclopedic format.

Icemotoboy (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • I believe that Point 2 there misinterprets what I meant when I said that the notability guideline is final. I was responding to the various alternative definitions of notability that are being thrown about in this AFD, with references being made to dictionary definitions, Wikipedia making up its own terms, etc. All I was trying to say is that the definition of Notability that is the subject of this AFD, and that which some believe this article fails, is that described in Wikipedia:Notability and not anywhere else like a dictionary. I hope that clarifies the matter. Thanks. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• You said it is the WP:Notability is final, exactly your words, so stop retreating now when you were proven to be authoritative person lacking the Wikipedia's mode-of-operation knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuZemike (talk • contribs) 17:51, July 15, 2008

Since the discussion is lenghty I would like to write below some resume:
Fact 1: TMW project is very unique, there is just one (known to me) OSS MMORPG - Daimonin.
Comment: Two projects like that among thousands of other OSS projects is definately notable fact making this project also notable (I have excluded all OSS game engines since they are, as the name says, engines not games).
Fact 2: TMW project gained prominent result in one of most important OSS contests - it is a finalist in the Community Choice Awards by SF.
Comment: As a person very concerned about OSS phenomena, I am appalled, when I am told to ignore this prominent and notable fact, surely such people (who are telling me that) have no idea about OSS at all, therefore they shouldn't even take part in this discussion, since they are unable to judge notability of this project.
Fact 3: Among hundreds of packages that are in the directory games of mainsteam Linux distributions repositories, this game is recomended on the official websites in their prominent and one of most visited category "games", links are posted above.
Comment: This fact does not require one.
Fact 4: The article is about project that complies with policy described in WP:GOOGLEHITS.
Comment: This fact does not require one.

Note 1: A short one to people yelling about "deranging" this page: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/debate Wiktionary happens to be also useful and notable project, worth to be checked once a while.
Note 2: I joined EN Wikipedia a long time before most of you, barnstar and template people, did. You are screaming out loud and trying to challenge credibility of other persons by attaching to their names edit counters and SPA templates to suggest they are sockpuppets, made by who? By me? It is indeed very low. Platyna (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Platyna that is complete rubbish - my exact words were, if you'll look, "We are using the word notability as defined by Wikipedia:Notability, and that is final. Why do you assume that the second clause is what I'm referring to as final? It might be slightly badly phrased, but I've certainly clarified that what I mean by final is the definition of notability. I'm not saying the guideline is final, and feel free to question it (not here though) but no other definition of notability other than that used in the guideline will be used in this AFD. That much is final. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - let us know if it actually wins an award and I might be convinced it passes WP:N, particularly if combined with pointers to substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. Also, I see that both WP:Notability and WP:GOOGLEHITS have been described in the above as "policies", which is incorrect. The former is a guideline and the latter is an essay. Marasmusine (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Even worse, GOOGLEHITS is a description of what not to do. Pagrashtak 14:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Worse than that, in the same edit in which I'm erroneously accused of considering the notability guideline final, WP:GOOGLEHITS - an essay, no less (or is "no more" a more appropriate comment in this instance? :p ) - is referred to as policy. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment ‘If someone brought this page to your attention’—I would like to note that In order to avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing and be nothing.

https://platyna.info https://platinum.edu.pl https://linkedin.com/platyna

Wikipedia:Babel

plPolski jest językiem ojczystym tego użytkownika.

en-3This user can contribute with an advanced level of English.

Search user languages

Userboxes

This user thinks Wikipedia is about knowledge not social advancement and ego building.

This user has published peer-reviewed articles in academic journals.

has been actively bringing this page to the attention of developers on irc channel [#tmwdev]. I am also interested that no-one has bothered to note this fact above (User:Sher-righan 16:45 Jul 15 2008 (UTC))

• Delete: Normally I'd advise against nominating something this quickly. But because this is an open source game that has only been out for a few months, it's not surprising that there is no coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Completely non-notable, as it does not meet the general notability guideline. Randomran (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually this project is almost 5 year's old. See also this [1] EJlol (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's that old and there's nothing in the press about it that makes me even more convinced it isn't notable. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment — Keep in mind that this is an open–source project. There is the potential to run into problems if we judge this article with the same weight/tenacity as commercial, closed-source projects. With that said, I'm not opposing the deletion of the article per se, (We obviously should not give open–source projects special treatment, which is what I'm trying not to imply.) but rather the circumstances in which it was so quickly nominated. MuZemike (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I am sorry to say that, but I must admitt, that over all these years Wikipedia has gone crazy. Ruin my work as you see fit. I don't have a time for flames, however I will not contribute to the Wikipedia anymore since it has lost its point.

Platyna (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I hope you won't let this one incident drive you away. The problem isn't that Wikipedia has lost its way—it's just that a lot of people have misunderstandings of what Wikipedia is. I found myself surprised quite a number of times my first few months here. If you decide to stick around, you'll find that we usually have a good reason behind our rules, although it may not always be apparent at first glance. We're not trying to be rude, and we don't want to ruin anyone's work, we're just upholding the policies and guidelines that we have arrived at by consensus. Try contributing to established articles in a related field. Perhaps you could help ensure that other MMO projects are presented with a neutral point of view, or NPOV. Pagrashtak 21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Nah, let him go. If the user insists on taking everything personally, then maybe the user doesn't belong here. I'd like to say that we do have a better understanding of how to run things than we did a couple of years ago when there was nothing but disorganization and chaos. MuZemike (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• There was a article about the mana world written in this magazine: [2] because we do not know which issue and/or page number, we are now trying to contact the director of the magazine. EJlol (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)