Talk:Easter egg (media)

"Easter egg on Movies"

Are post-credit sequences in films really known as "easter eggs"? Any references to support that? Marasmusine (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"programmers say that forbidding harmless easter eggs may be counter-productive"

I removed the text "However, programmers say that forbidding harmless easter eggs may be counter-productive, because they serve a very important purpose." The cited reference was an interview with one self-described hacker, and the "very important purpose" was that "they are fun to write". hulmem (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Two Fictional Easter Eggs Found in The Net (1995)

There are two fictional Easter Eggs found in the 1995 movie The Net which starred Sandra Bullock:

(1) The virus she finds at the beginning of the movie is invoked by hitting the [Esc] key. It is later used at the end of the movie to restore her data that the bad guys had erased.

(2) The central plot of the movie revolves the ability to click on the Pi symbol in a fictional game called "Mozart's Ghost". The Pi symbol is at the lower right corner, and by clicking on it she gains access to a United States Department of Defense database and other sensitive databases.

The Second Source

Source 2 in no way proves what the sentence before it claims. The sentence claims the term 'easter egg'"is derived by the practice of the last Russian imperial family's tradition of giving elaborately jeweled egg-shaped creations by Carl Fabergé which usually contained hidden gifts themselves," but the source that follows it links to a short article about DVD easter eggs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.178.89 (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

browncisBrowncis (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The claim that easter eggs are a reference to the imperial russian royal family's tradition (not much of a tradition as it only lasted a couple of decades) does seem to be somewhat suspect, not to mention obscure. the reference cited is also a bit on the light side in terms of documenting that this was indeed the case. Far more likely that the term derives from the widespread cultural impact of american and other easter egg hunts. extraordinary claims require extraordinary documentation. Jmdeur (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me the same way. I'll change that passage to be less specific. 24.7.121.60 (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Morse code

I removed the following from the article ".--. . .-. ... --- -. .- .-.. .-. . .-.. .. .- -... .-.. . .. -. -. --- ...- .- - .. ...- . ... .. -- .--. .-.. . .. -. -. --- ...- .- - .. ...- . .--. . .-. ... --- -. .- .-.. -.. . ... .. --. -. .-. . .-.. .. .- -... .-.. . .. -. -. --- ...- .- - .. ...- . -.. . ... .. --. -. .--. . .-. ... --- -. .- .-.. -.. . ... .. --. -. ... .. -- .--. .-.. . .. -. -. --- ...- .- - .. ...- ." because I do not think that it adds anything. I just re-did the surrounding text. If you feel that it is necessary then please assert your reasoning here. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Easter eggs in computer software

On 8 April 2008, references to Mac OS X's easter eggs were removed by a user (who has since been banned) because there were no references. I know that every entry is supposed to have a reference, but what do I do in this instance, as Easter eggs are, by definition, undocumented features? — George Steinmetz (talk • contribs) 00:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the list?

There used to be this great list of easter eggs on this page. It's gone now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.100.210 (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead Image

Does that image actually contain easter eggs? Because I've been looking at it for quite some time now and can't see any. Which would be a nice meta-easter egg (Whatever that means.) Estimating a 60% chance ill figure it out after I post this. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Look where the bunnies are looking. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Are they not just looking at the hedgehog? how is that an Easter Egg? Rubisco (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

When you put your cursor on the hedgehog, it should reveal an easter egg. Perhaps it's a browser issue. I've asked others at IRC to check it, and they can find it. Please try again and let me know. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"Reveal" in what sense? In Safari 5.1.2 (build 6534.52.7) on Mac OS X 10.6.8, if I put the mouse cursor on the hedgehog, it does not directly reveal anything, but the cursor turns into the "click here" hand. If I click there, it takes me to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Bg-easter-eggs.jpg, which is a picture of a basket of Easter eggs. (Yeah, I gave the secret away. If we're going to discuss whether it's a browser issue, that can't be avoided.) Guy Harris (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. I don't know. I just made it to show how a link can be concealed within an image. That's all. Would you like to remove the whole thing, or replace it with something better? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.44.239 (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I quite like the joke. Was it hard to implement? FeyBart (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It was easy. Click edit on the article page. There, you will find the link to the tool that created it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems OK to me, with there being no reason to remove it. -- Trevj (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this textbook WP:CLICKHERE (and, dare I say it, tenuously WP:EGG), if the example cannot be understood by and isn't explained to users of certain browsers, or anyone reading a print version? It'd seem better to just illustrate the article with a screenshot of one of the many software or website easter eggs mentioned in the article. --McGeddon (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with replacing the top image with one from a notable cited instance, but I'd also want to keep the live bunnies/eggs example in the article. Until then, I'd leave it as is. --Lexein (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've now replaced it with a screenshot of Google Maps' "Mordor" joke. --McGeddon (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the rabbit one because it's an actual example. The Google thing is text, and so doesn't offer much more than the description of it in the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It adds something to see the Mordor joke in context, but you're right, it's not much. I'm afraid it's the only given example I had access to in order to take a screenshot.

Although the very earliest comments on this thread predate the addition of a "Try to click where the two rabbits are looking" instruction to the rabbit caption, I think it still has unresolvable WP:CLICKHERE problems if the image is unillustrative (and potentially confusing) to a reader using a primitive browser or a printed copy of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'm not a big fan of IGNOREALLRULES, but this seemed like one occasion where it would trump WP:CLICKHERE. I mean, how can we do better than a working example? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Google example is non-free. So, I've added back the free example, and removed the main clickhere issue, since only description is offered. I've rewritten it as a direct told-you-so-why-are-you-hitting-me pun. Don't hate me for completely deconstructing it. --Lexein (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we have to be even more crashingly literal, if the article is going to make sense to someone who's reading this on paper, or whose browser doesn't support imagemaps. "In this thumbnail, if a user on a computer were to click on the hedgehog they would be taken to a picture of some easter eggs instead of a larger version of the painting."? We have clearly dissected the frog by this point, though.

Is there a selfref style template for "this section would make no sense on paper, so never print it and never include it in a book built from this content"? --McGeddon (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

What browsers support images but not imagemaps? Suggestion: a template for imagemaps which automatically shows both images when printed or shown by no-imagemaps browser. One fact that's being lost here is that most Wikipedia article images are too small to be of any use without zooming anyways - this includes that Google search example, or any screengrabs of any software with any text whatsoever. --Lexein (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I thought the imagemap wasn't working on Opera Mini 7.5 on my smartphone, but it looks like the clickable area is just being buggily offset (its top left corner is shown as starting in the centre of the hedgehog image, when I hit it successfully). --McGeddon (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

We could make the clickable area bigger. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a few percent, but I had no problems with the displayed outline position or sensed-touch position on my creaky old HTC Android 2.3 phone, or my cheap-as-dirt Android 2.3 tablet, with the built-in browser, Dolphin, or Opera Mini. The text "You're not going to believe this..." didn't appear on anything in Android, but did in all browsers in Windows. --Lexein (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Google image

Isn't the whole non-free thing about images that really need to be there, and aren't replaceable? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That was the rationale for deletion of all screenshots from this article in the past. Now that the legal pendulum has swung back a bit toward fair use, I'd like to add back the screenshots. But there are editors rabidly against use of multiple fair-use images, sigh. (Above, I was just being testy about the Google screenshot). --Lexein (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Glancing through the page history it turns out that File:Adventure Easteregg.PNG - a screenshot of the "first" videogame easter egg - still exists as a file. Non-free image use isn't really my area, though. --McGeddon (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the google pic. I just don't want us to get in trouble. I really don't know either if it's okay. If it were up to me, I'd have tons and tons of these screenshots. We could ask at the reference desk. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Tell 'em Google said it was ok. Heh! --Lexein (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced claims since 2006

On May 17, 2006 this was added,

Due to the increase in malware, many companies and government offices forbid the use of software containing Easter eggs for security reasons. With the rise of cybercrime and the prevalence of the Easter egg's cousin the logic bomb, there is now concern that if the programmer could slip in undocumented code, then the software cannot be trusted. This is of particular concern in offices where personal or confidential information is stored, making it sensitive to theft and ransom. For this reason, many developers have stopped the practice of adding Easter eggs to their software. Microsoft who has in the past created some of the largest and most elaborate Easter eggs such as the one's in Microsoft Office, no longer allows Easter eggs. This is in large part due to it's status as a founding member of the Trusted Computing Group.

with four or more claims unsupported by the two [1][2] external links provided. I've noticed this paragraph each time I've revisited the article, but didn't pay too much attention, because I assumed it was true. This section has been replicated, more or less verbatim, around the web in about 75 places, some important, some not:

• 3 days later with attribution, called "well documented"(!) in "MS Office Easter Eggs" TechGuy forum.
• In 2010, unattributed, in "Take a look back at Microsoft Word Easter Eggs". ZDNet. By Greg Schultz, who also posted the text on Techrepublic.com.

Wikipedia isn't about something made up or synthesized one day, even if it seems reasonable, so I've rewritten the section. Against usual tagging procedure, I've commented out the unsourced text, specifically to salt it from re-adding without proper sourcing. Going forward, it would be helpful to find sources supporting the "no software with Easter eggs" prohibition claim. User:Dru of Id has stated that the military has such prohibitions. It's not clear to me how such a mandate could be carried out in companies and government agencies with entrenched Microsoft Office software. --Lexein (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

unacceptable links

Regarding this reversion, my understanding is that if it can only be verified through WP:SPS and WP:USERG it does not meet our idea of WP:RS and using Wikipedia to disseminate contents from a self-published websites is a citation spamming. Please explain why you think re-insertion of such disreputable junk links are acceptable with supporting policy. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Unacceptable deletions, rather. Your unexplained deletions far exceed that cited by the single disputed source, DVD-whatever-who-cares. The others have been determined to be RS for use in this article, and you're out to lunch. Feel free to dispute sources one-by-one, and I'll deal with you on that basis. You got my attention by deleting RS material along with your one disputed source. That's bullshit, so knock it off. --Lexein (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Unacceptable reinsertion rather. It is not necessary to discuss each and every action in small bits. You have been around long enough. Forum posts and wikis are user generated contents and group or personal websites are self-published without a means of reliable and reputable fact checking process. Such sources are unacceptable in most cases, and the removed contents are no exception. You should need to have another look at WP:USERG and not reinsert garbage Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that it was okay not to even look for sources, and not to even check RSN for source reliability, but both ideas are plainly wrong. So, to prove a point, I sourced your wrong Channel F deletion from a book for which you didn't bother to search. Consider that reason enough for me to revert nearly every single one your deletions, unless you can demonstrate some good faith and source them yourself. Since, you know, the WP:Five pillars talk about some blather about building an encyclopedia, or something like that. --Lexein (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I inadvertently deleted your revert there, as you didn't mention your "reason enough" in the edit summary and (since you also overwrote my intervening edit about Video Whizball) I assumed it was an accident. But one user lacking the time or inclination to seek out better sources is not a valid reason to restore inadequately sourced material. We have some eyes on this now - if there's anything worth keeping in there, it's not going to be lost. --McGeddon (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I indeed received no edit conflict warning, though there was a brief Wikipedia outage error page at the time. Glad you found the oh-so-easy-to-find-book, too.first, as it turns out. It was so easy to find, I will never cease the celebratory well-deserved mockery of the deletionist's bald laziness, for wasting our time, as nearly all deletionists do. --Lexein (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC) added temporal corrections above --Lexein (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this edit:[3] "thought to be?" That's not what source seems to suggest. If its only certain to "though to be" certainty, I don't feel that its worthy of inclusion. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'll be reverting every single removal of eeggs.com as a source, because it was considered RS at RSN. The material is reviewed by the editors before publication. I didn't start this purge, but I'm goddamn well ending it. The above admitted lack of understanding is well and truly exceeded by its true extent. Editors should not edit articles without an understanding of domain-specific RS. I trust sources, not your awesome advice. --Lexein (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I found two RSN discussion about it. Opinion is split on it. I don't think the materials on this site is reliable source to use directly, because they're user created contents. I made a third opinion request on this. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• • • I'm a big fan of 3O, but just so you know, they tend to not participate when there are 3 (McGeddon) in the discussion already. You're deliberately, factually wrong about the nature of eeggs.com. I wish you weren't, but you are. --Lexein (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Count me out of this one, please, I don't feel like expending the extra care and energy required to talk to a user who - after being given a rebuttal that is polite enough to frame an opinion as "I find" rather than "it is a fact" - posts a bulleted list of outright personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, and ends with "so whatever, ha ha, go away". --McGeddon (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Whatever, but don't pretend you haven't heard of WP:DUCK and WP:SPADE, and don't pretend that Cantaloupe2 has been acting in any kind of good faith, with each and every deliberate misrepresentation made about the easily checkable eeggs.com, and about the obviously checkable discussions they have elected to misrepresent. Deletionists don't get a pass just because they pretend to be polite, and I do mean "pretend." And though I asked you not to mischaracterize my text, you did it anyways: my actual "ends with" was "so whatever, ha ha, go away, or change your entire attitude." Thank you. --Lexein (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, I have been "pretending" that an editor has been acting in good faith, and this is the assumption that all editors should start from. --McGeddon (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
            • Uh, your fight is not with me. It's with the troll who started decimating the article, and making bad faith claims about sources. Trolls do it for the lulz, and you, now snarking with me, are the troll's win. See how the troll got quiet as soon as you started in on me? WP:DUCK, WP:SPADE, Q.E.D. --Lexein (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I used 3O, because this dispute is between you and I. McGeddon does not appear to be a part of dispute. I have listed eeggs.com on RSN again. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
        • And I struck it through (though I should have simply reverted it) as canvassing and forum shopping. Let 3O complete before RSN restarts. Either you respect the 3O process, or you do not. I do. --Lexein (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
          • and I un-struck it. You grieved that I didn't bother checking RSN, and that 3O is not proper. Per your grievance, I checked every entry on this on RSN, and I initiated another RSN and I reciprocally disclosed it. While 3O is okay, its not a binding process. It is up at RSN again, because there your interpretation of consensus that "it was deemed reliable" based on one favorable opinion differs from my interpretation of "no consensus". I don't believe that I am going against WP:CANVAS policy, especially since the whole process is made transparent on both sides, on here, and on RSN. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
            • You jumped process. Good for you. You split discussion. I'll let others write about that little gem. Next: I didn't "grieve" anything. Your choice of words is interesting: are you griefing? BTW I wrote that 3O was good: read my words. And FYI yes, three ill-informed, shallow opinions in 2010 do matter less than two informed ones in 2011 (counting me). And another informed one in 2013. But the year is young. --Lexein (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

the use of eeggs.com as a source and listing examples from there

After reviewing the source, the system there appears similar to wiki based pages where anyone can contribute by logging in. I have reviewed prior RSN discussions and consensus is unclear. Regarding which examples are chosen for inclusion, I find it to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of specific examples.

My issue with the source is that it is user generated contents, the reliability of its editorial process, which was said to be husband and wife team and whether there is fact checking before something even gets listed on the page.

• 2010 discussion
• 2011 discussion

It maybe cited by other books, but its likely that editorial process in book publishing used the source as a reference, but did their own fact checking before putting it into print, so citing these sources would be fine in my opinion, because it now becomes a secondary source. The direct reference to website appears to be primary user generated sourced. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You find? You find? Your findings are irrelevant.

• Your decidedly non-rigorous "review" of eeggs.com is a blunt lie. You falsely declare it to be "similar to wiki based pages", with no foundation whatsoever. It is not. You apparently don't know what a wiki is, and so cannot discriminate between a wiki and a non-wiki.
• Your personal declaration that this topic-specific, cited-by-others source is "WP:INDISCRIMINATE" is false, a dumb misapplication of that wiki shortcut, and is unsupported by anyone in the 2010 discussion at RSN, even the most virulent opposer. Your misreading of that discussion is laughable, and you're failing to make any case against eeggs.com whatsoever.
• You surmise "its likely" (and by the way, that's "it's" as in "it is") that other sources, citing eeggs.com, have performed their own verification out of thin air. That's a bullshit fabrication, and bullshit does not play here.
• The simple fact is, eeggs.com has been cited by many others, and that stands in its favor in general and not just for narrowly isolated items chosen by you. Your arrogance is unbelievable, but you're quite believably wrong.
• Also, and more to the point, the 2010 "discussion" was shallow and ignorant of basic facts about the source. The 2011 assessment as reliable went deeper, found that it was cited in many books, and was, importantly, not challenged by the 2010 opposers, who in 2011 were all still editors in good standing. So, you're out to lunch.
• I seem to recall that you also labeled eeggs.com a primary source, as well. Um, no, that's not on either.
• This discussion is WP:LAME. You're acting in the capacity of a narrowminded agenda-driven, policy-wikilawyering, "don't like this article, so I'll shred it" deletionist, and that is not welcome here. Most likely of all, you're trolling, and aren't serious about any of these trumped up objections, so whatever, ha ha, go away, or change your entire attitude. --Lexein (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

ReformedArsenal (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Lexein

Answering the 3O request in order (apologies for not responding in a single short sentence - the dispute seems more complicated than that):

1. The website eeggs.com should be considered a reliable source for the purpose of this article about software and other easter eggs. It was discussed at RSN twice, in 2010 and 2011. In the 2010 discussion, the facts and nature of the site were not discussed, and it was piled on negatively without analysis. In the 2011 discussion, the procedures and editorial process were explained, the RSN responder pointed out that eeggs.com was cited by many many RS, and that response was not disputed by any of the original opposers, or anybody else. Further, eeggs.com is not a "primary" source, it is an edited compendium with owner/editorial oversight, which is easily determined from the website itself. The editors/owners of the website published a book of the site in 1997. Next, eeggs.com is not a "wiki", nor is it "wiki like" - this is obvious from its structure, submission process, and item presentation. Finally, the editor's assessment that eeggs.com's status as RS was "indeterminate" is invalid. Later discussion at RSN may be considered to override prior discussion, especially when prior discussion was shallow and not reasoned, and later discussion follows policy. Addendum: Cantaloupe2 has no evidence that items are "not positively accuracy checked" by eeggs.com before publication, and ignores eeggs.com financial and reputational incentive not to publish false or unverifiable entries. Addendum 2: 65 Google Scholar results: this is an unequivocally regularly cited source. Multiple coverage in multiple independent sources over multiple decades: See New York Times; not just listed, but recommended and quoted directly. See many news outlets internationally, including a whole segment interview on NPR. Addendum 3: According to their legal disclaimer in the FAQ, "we do make a best effort to eliminate false and harmful instructions" - this is their pledge to apply oversight, which is exactly what any and all editorial and fact-checking staff will do. This renders the fact that items are user-suggested moot, because editorial oversight is clearly claimed. BUT, just as any and all news sources have disclaimers that they cannot guarantee the veracity of every item published, eeggs.com makes the same disclaimer, and should not be held to a higher standard than a news outlet. They have, bluntly, met the burden.
2. The items listed in this article are not "indiscriminate", at least not according to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The article is an overview (as are all encyclopedia articles); in this case, it is of the phrase "easter eggs" in its meaning in several topic areas, and items listed are covered by reliable sources, and are all relevant to the topic in an encyclopedic context.

The article may benefit from some editing, and discussion, but not from arbitrary, improperly reasoned deletionism practiced en masse against sourced content, and the sources themselves.

Viewpoint by Cantaloupe2

My viewpoint is just like the 2010 RS/N discussion. Contents are submitted by users, which means that they're user generated contents. They're not positively accuracy checked by the editorial board with a reputation for good fact checking before it is allowed to become available online. From the description of the authors, they introduce themselves "We are the husband and wife team of David and Annette Wolf. We graduated in Computer Engineering together from the University of Washington.". WP:SPS exemption specifically say expertise verifiable through secondary publications and not that anyone with a degree in a relevant field is considered experts. To comment on the 2011 RSN's sole responder's opinion: If books published by reputable publishers used this source, it is ok to cite that book, because before the specific examples were allowed in the book, news, etc it was likely fact checked. When wikipedia editors decided that "because example A,B,C,D from eeggs.com have been used as references in reliably published materials, examples, E and F must be reliable" is a slippery slope argument. "This couple heard from their friends this and that and the couple found it correct" is still the couple's original research. On the other hand, if a reliable publication publishes on something assisted by anecdotal evidence, the findings of the publication is reliable. (i.e. an easteregg talked about in ComputerWord which cites eeggs.com, but accuracy verified by CW's own editorial board). For these reasons, I argue that eeggs.com fails WP:RS criteria, and the authors still fall under WP:SPS. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion by ReformedArsenal

....

Third (fourth?) opinion by GRuban

As I wrote in more detail on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#eeggs.com.2C_a_source_about_computer_program_easter_eggs.2C_3rd_RSN, reliable per WP:SPS "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." --GRuban (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Fourth (fifth?) opinion by DreamGuy

As I wrote in more detail in the same thread, I don't think there's enough evidence of that. I am also concerned that Lexein may have a COI of some sort in promotion of the site, as he/she is responding extremely aggressively in this discussion and is pulling up information to try to prove expertise and fact checking from places so random and not verifiable by outside sources that it suggests someone working for the site. DreamGuy (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)