Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GraalOnline: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:43, 1 August 2006

GraalOnline

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Does not conform with these guidelines, as well as these. Members of both sides seem to agree that because no resolution can be found, this should be deleted. Administrators also agree, and there is a growing concensus for this to occur on the article's talk page.

Comment as Nominator: The reason that I nominated this, as well as the above reasons, was that I believe that this article is unfixable. Because of GraalOnline's staunch opposition (harrsasing phone calls to Wikimedia Corp, which Brad Patrick described to me as: "That's how [this issue] was brought to my attention, that and the harassing phone calls from the crazy Frenchman.") to anything added which doesn't have a positive connotation and serve as an advertisment, there will never be a NPOV on this page, unless GraalOnline corporation members are prevented from removing material. I would accept this resolution (GO staff being banned from removing material) as an alternate to deleting it, but if that isn't possible, delete it will be. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 07:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We now see where all this is coming from "a crazy Frenchman" (strange from an Australian and some American guys), that's the real problem not the article. About your statement about Graalonline removing material, we have removed the unsourced criticism content in conformity with wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Who are you to judge me and my corporation? Are you top of all wikipedia rules to be able to decide what article should be deleted or not and who should be able to edit the article or not? We have given URL of articles speaking about graalonline and lot of people think that the article should not be deleted pointing to wikipedia rules. Graal unixmad 17:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Chill out. Torinir _{( Ding my phone} _{My support calls} _{E-Support Options )} 18:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of the critisism was sourced in this article, and when it was sourced, it was from a source which the wiki does not allow. I hope that you are not suggesting that this article go against wiki rules? What is wrong with fixing the article, and not adding things that people cannot source until they can per wiki guidelines?--Moon Goddess 12:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referred to this page by Danny as a likely reason for this page being deleted:

"If the rules are unhelpful, ignore them and do your best to improve or maintain Wikipedia's quality."

So if i understand, if the wikipedia rules don't allow you to delete an article about a game you have never played, then just break wikipedia written rules and destroy it for improving Wikipedia's quality. This remind me something... Perhaps a country declaring war to another for improving the world even if it's against all rules made by ONU. Graal unixmad 17:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ignore that last statement as nothing more than a distracting red herring. While I do believe there are enough reviews of graal floating around on the web to base an article off of, your edits are obviously acting in bad faith. You claim that negative comments are deleted by your corporation because of being unreferenced (which is correct in general, although bad form in a long standing dispute without discussion) - HOWEVER, take this statement currently on the page. "Perhaps Graal's greatest strength is its customizability. An intuitive editor allows even the most technically-inept players to build levels of their own, complete with custom graphics and interactive NPCs. The latter are developed using a simple - yet surprisingly powerful - language named GScript, the syntax of which was loosely inspired by Java and which lately has adapted some semantics of the scripting language of the Torque Game Engine. The target audience of the game has not yet used these features to their fullest extent. [citation needed]". That entire paragraph, consisting of weasel words such as "greatest strength", "intuitive editor", and "simple-yet surprisingly powerful", was made without a single reference, independent or otherwise, to back it up. You're acting like an interest group lobbying for your article, obeying the rules only when it suits your position. That is blatantly abusing Wikipedia policy. JoshWook 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The GraalOnline team have not written the wikipedia Graalonline article (and the part you are talking about), the article has been written by someone called Loriel, this graalonline player is the creator of 'http://wiki.graal.us/' that has no relationship with us. Also have a look at other game article like RuneScape and tell me if you don't see weasel words, the article is full of make "RuneScape one of the top online games", "Unlike many similar game", "RuneScape places a lot of emphasis on ... allowing players ", ... Graal unixmad 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 10:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I originally said to delete this article :-P Oh well, but hey its working out right anyway --Warcaptain 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The company in question is CyberJoueurs, not GraalOnline by itself; the latter is rather a published product. --Philipp Kern 10:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed into Keep (previous Neutral) on date of signature. It think an unbiased entry should be present, which neither serves as a plain advertisement by CyberJoueurs, nor as a plain flame of their administration. --Philipp Kern 19:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but way too much history for a non-partisan observer (I like to think that's me) to wade through. I suspect if it does get deleted you'll need it protected to prevent recreation. Yomangani 10:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect your right, but I'm not sure it's reasonable to salt the earth without at least one inappropriate recreation WilyD 13:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB and I'm sure I could swear at least one other criterion. Anyways, get your axe and give this article the treatment it deserves. WilyD 13:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, fails WP:WEB. An article that can only cite the publisher's website is obviously not ever going to be NPOV, especially with Cyberjouers being that publisher.Di4gram 14:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have always known it didn't meet WP:WEB, I just didn't know the policies very well. As somebody who has been following this dispute in it's entirety, including talk pages involved, and many others related to Graal Online, this is the only way to resolve it. I'm sure of it. --RogueShadow 14:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Keep in mind that the inability to find reliable anti-GraalOnline sources is not a reason to delete the article. Also - note to closing administrator: keep in mind that there are a lot of people involved in this article dispute and all but two or three of them are staunchly-anti-GraalOnline - or at least anti-GraalOnline management. Don't read this as support for or against deletion (in fact I'm leaning towards delete if I vote at all) but it's something to keep in mind. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-GraalOnline" is a very funny phrase to use, whether or not it preceeds the word "management". You seem to be dangerously close to following that game's management in that you are defining critics as "anti". I'll still let good faith guide me away from saying that you are speaking under their direction, but please don't suggest otherwise by using rather black-and-white terminology.

The lack of so-called "anti-GraalOnline" evidence can be pretty much refuted at www.suiffix.com. If you scroll down, you'll see a user, wowb4gger, who states several arguments against the game's management without committing a ton of ad hominem. I don't really agree with what some of the other articles say (though they do raise the point that GraalOnline's content is not really managed well). I'm sure, however, you will find a reason to disregard this website as well.Di4gram 16:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I certainly wouldn't classify too many in there as pro-GraalOnline, would you? You prefer another phrase, throw it out there. Pro-GraalOnline-criticism seems a little unwieldy to me but that's fine too. As for www.suiffix.com, I can't even figure out how to use the site so how reliable can it be? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree with di4gram in the "anti-Graal" thing. If you are so eager to condemn contributors as anti-GraalOnline, I just have to consider you biased or heavily influenced by the GraalOnline management. Loriel 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, just trying to keep count of people who wanted the criticism section vs. those that didn't. It felt like the ratio was weighed heavily in favor of the former and, if you consider that two of the users in the latter group were blocked indefinitely, the ratio approaches infinity I think. Maybe I'm wrong and it was just the same pro-criticism-section (is that better?) users posting over and over but it seemed like it was becoming quite a hive mentality. Whichever, take a look at how many of my 12,000+ edits here have been related to online gaming at all and reconsider how affiliated I am with the GraalOnline management. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about anti-Cyberjoueurs? Is that better? Semantics, semantics... —Wknight94 (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. It seems very hasty to assume that those who think that accepting criticism is important are "anti"-anything. Loriel 18:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, you clearly get my point so just substitute whatever term makes you happy. If both sides like to be called pro-something, then go for it. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about "pro-opinion"?--Kuribo 05:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:WEB Torinir _{( Ding my phone} _{My support calls} _{E-Support Options )} 17:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not re-posting the mini-essay; see talk page if you want to (re)read it. --That Jason 17:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering Phil's comment above, I see that the article indeed describes a game and not the company behind the game, except where necessary to explain criticism, so the policy cited in the nomination is not applicable at all. Also, it seems pretty questionable to me to consider an online game/community "web content" as per WP:WEB. Loriel 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no fair way to cite this article so that every party involved will be satisfied. Also, if you are going to be strict about the Wikipedia rules then there are no valid sources since the Official Graal online site is not neutral and you wont allow forums. --Warcaptain 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, I'm going to say that Graal doesn't quite measure up with WP:WEB. Graal Online is not well known and this "Civil War" won't be resolved on Wikipedia, that's for sure. Quamsta 18:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
keep, conditionally If the style is good, and in depth, and information is cited, then WP:WEB should only be considered a single strike against it, Not a kill. i kan reed 19:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If Unixmad is so against any criticism, whether true or not, there may as well not be an article about the game at all instead of a very one-sided article. -Daltonls 20:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB fails WP:NPOV Vipercat 21:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.--Gillespee 21:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 01:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I used to play GraalOnline back in the day, but I don't think it meets WP:WEB. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 01:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 01:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What do corporate notability guidelines have to do with this? This article is about a game, not a company. Same for web guidelines. Besides, my understanding is that it's not notability that's the problem here. We list many lesser-known video games. The problem is the inability of the editors to properly NPoV the article. As there's nothing about the topic that suggests it's inherrently PoV, this doesn't seem like a reason to delete, more a reason to refer to the neutrality project. We don't scrap things because we have difficulty writing good articles. Look at any article abotut an ethnic group for examples.Ace of Sevens 02:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete* Things should be worked out, instead of sestroying a great resource--Xc4l1br 02:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with you, but not enough people care that are posting here, to do it correctly. It is really a shame that it will be deleted. --Moon Goddess 13:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it was attempted to work things out, and it ended up being a complete failure.Kevinazite 03:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Combination 15:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This look like a private war made by Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant against the GraalOnline article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian78 (talk • contribs)

— Possible single purpose account: Adrian78 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

User has only 1 edit, which was to this AfD. User created account only 4 minutes before vote was cast. -Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 08:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - Danny 16:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing where this passes WP:WEB. GassyGuy 20:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Please see the discussion of the "notability requirement regarding Deletion reform Spiderweb 13:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: Spiderweb (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

User has only 3 edits, all of which was to this AfD. User created account only 4 minutes before vote was cast. -Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 07:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Keep If GraalOnline article need to be delete because of this false reason then 50% of wikipedia need to be deleted Markis 14:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: Markis (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

User has only 1 edit, which was to this AfD. User created account only 2 minutes before vote was cast. -Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 07:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Keep: GraalOnline article is old on wikipedia, it is a revenge from User:Daniel.Bryant, see User_talk:Graal_unixmad Antidot12 14:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Possible single purpose account: Antidot12 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

User has only 1 edit, which was to this AfD. User created account only 5 minutes before vote was cast. -Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 08:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: Last 4 votes smell a little meaty... —Wknight94 (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah, any way we can have them looked into? The Cyberjouers staff have a distinct way of messing up sentences.Di4gram 17:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't seem necessary. Closing admins are allowed the discretion to give new/inexperienced users less voting weight if they choose. And let's be civil regarding people's experience with English please. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you misinterpreted me. I am saying that it could be unixmad himself. And as far as civility, there isn't anything wrong by pointing out that this individual messes up sentences in the same manner that unixmad does. Di4gram 03:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sounds like I interpreted you just fine - unless you have some analysis of unixmad's specific writing pattern. Sounds like a lot of people who use English as a second language - meaning zillions of people. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but complete rewrite: GraalOnline was one of the first MMORPGs of this kind. It was once very popular, but lost many users when much of the service switched away from a free to a pay-to-play service. The article should be on Wikipedia, but not in the current form, which seems to have more than a little too much propaganda. --Gau 08:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh, the article was way less one-sided before the recent edit-warring. Consider just reverting to an older version and going from there. Loriel 10:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your assessment. --Philipp Kern 13:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is customary to point out accounts that seem to have been created solely to vote; I'd like to point out to our newcomers that they should not remove such notices. --Golbez 08:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let it be cleaned up and developed. Almost all games are kept on Wikipedia. Orangehead 15:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this user is currently suspected of being involved in sockpuppetry. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 08:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - Let's show Mister Daniel Bryant and friends that they don't own the GraalOnline article on wikipedia, smaller game are on wikipedia so Graalonline should be allowed to get an article. Graal unixmad 16:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You own it neither. Keep that in mind. --Philipp Kern 22:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've gone through and read a lot of the information on wikipedia about this particular dispute, and while I'm sympathetic to the "I give up" position, I think we all need to step back and breathe for a second. I've never played Graal before but I've heard about it before this mess - surely it's been notable enough to get a mention independently somewhere before. As far as the criticism, "positive", and "negative" information is concerned, I could care less as long as there are reliable sources listed. If not, tag and eventually delete, as per the mediation dispute. The corporate website is fine for information on game mechanics, publication date and history (as long as the information cited avoids advertisement and blatant self-praise), etc. - that stuff is NPOV and their website is nothing more than a convenient source. If it is later vandalized, temp. protect the page. Don't let wikipedia be bullied by a couple of minor online communities. In short, I'm sure this can all be worked out before the publication deadline. 129.61.46.16 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]

Comment I don't known if this is common on wikipedia that someone introducing a request for deletion try to influence the vote saying that everyone agree to delete the article. But the team managing the game and the creators of the game (Me and Stefan Knorr) are completly against having the article deleted. Could be also interesting to ask the > 300000 players that have downloaded the game and open an account if the game is WP:WEB or not.

Also if a game giving 60000 results on google and having more than 20 reviews is WP:WEB then lot of other articles should be deleted see this list of review:

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/setView/overview/gameID/38 This is the biggest web site for MMO game
http://www.gamebanshee.com/reviews/software/graalonline.php One of the biggest game review web site
http://www.virtualworldlets.net/Worlds/Reviews/Reviews.php?ID=22
http://macteens.com/index.php/features/fullstory/review_graal_online/ One of the biggest mac site
http://graalonline.softonic.com/ie/50364

Graal unixmad 16:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The preceeding comment by unixmad was originally placed in the header of the AFD with the nomination. I'm going to assume good faith in that they meant to add it to the bottom of the page as a new comment and were not trying to interfere with the nomination itself, so I moved it down appropriately as a new comment. I think they're right about the reviews though - they do at least attest to the notability of the game. Would it be possible to use those as a basis for a rewrite? 129.61.46.16 19:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  - Those reviews appear pretty onesided, so you might as well replace the article with an advertisement copy&pasted from the game's website. Though I am laughing pretty hard at "modified version of C, know as Graal Script.". Loriel 21:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I did not mean to suggest that the reviews are balanced in coverage, only that they qualify as sources independent of graal online and therefore testify to the notability of the game. I guess the main issue I have with this AFD is that it was nominated for deletion because it was not notable enough, when the real problem is the content dispute. Unfortunately, content disputes generally do not fall under any deletion guideline that I'm aware of. Of course, they also usually don't result in Wikimedia's lawyers stepping in...so this may be a highly unusual case all around. 68.106.198.28 00:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
      - Comment Well, if Cyberjouers is willing to legally threaten Wikipedia for criticism sections, what makes you think they don't do the same thing to other websites? Based on how they have conducted themselves here, it seems incredible to ask people to provide evidence for the other side, since any negative reviews are probably sent DMCA letters (just do a Google for DMCA and Portha, you'll see him actually post a DMCA letter which is supposed to be an e-mail on a forum).Di4gram 02:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment While I hate to pass the buck here, you have to understand that even if the entirety of the internet and print world has been purged of negative information on a subject, it is simply not Wikipedia's job to publish that negative information first. That's original research, and goes against one of wikipedia's foundation policies. You may have the right to get the word out about Graal, but basically, you don't have the right to do it here until it's done in a reliable, peer-reviewed source elsewhere. 68.106.198.28 11:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
        Comment That's fine, but when it clearly isn't balanced, and many users also claim it isn't balanced, is it Wikipedia's job to hold a glorified advertisement? To further prove my point, Stephane just tried to warn me for the above comment about the DMCA. This guy will not let anything even slightly negative go, true or not. Di4gram 17:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment No, Wikipedia does not condone advertisements - many articles about non-notable games or websites, usually written by the owners of the product, are deleted on a regular basis. The websites listed above, however, confirm in my mind that Graal is not something invented last week. It has a fairly long history for an online game, and is notable enough for an article. Most of those reviews do not appear to be affiliated with the site, and even if they don't mention the personality conflicts that seem to be the issue here, their impressions of the game aren't overwhelmingly positive either. I guess the thing is, that while a game or website may be notable enough for a wikipedia article, not all of its components (in this case, its forums and spin-off forums, I guess) are necessarily worthy of the same treatment. JoshWook 18:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Honestly this is getting old. This wikipedia war is not going to end. I can see perfectly why it's nominated for deletion as it is one-sided and more advertisement friendly. Everything put in it is simply on Graal Online's side and as much as I love the game, this wiki is not part of Graal Online and is control by the community. I don't see why both sides can't come to a conclusion and by allowing the article to go back up just means the war will start again. Deletion seems to be the easiest method, this whole situation has gotten so complicated and has become such a big issue that it disserves itself to be on the wiki as it's an issue. It just seems like a bunch of accounts are being made to say "Keep" now as if it truly matters... just let it go and forget it for a while and if it is deleted just wait a while to make a new one. Even when you make a new one, people are going to alter it because that's how wiki works. Once someone alters it then more arguments will happen on Graal Onlines side. It's more likely in the future that there will be citable information for critism for the game... even those reviews of the game are not very good but in no way reveal any critizism. Brandon Mitchell 5:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I would love to see a good, Graal article here, like other games have. Just don't add anything that cannot be sourced, until it can be by wiki rules.--Moon Goddess 01:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Graal unixmad and Philipp Kern. WP:NPOV is not a valid reason for deletion. If the article is poor as is, then fix it. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd hate to see a precedent established that you can prevent anything negative from being said about you on Wikipedia through empty law suit threats. Jack Thompson (attorney) threatened to sue Wikipedia and his page is still intact along with all the information that makes him look bad. Ace of Sevens 10:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That article has 84 references at the bottom including CNN, Miami Herald, L.A. Times, etc., etc. As soon as someone can find reliable verification for the serious injuries caused by Cyberjourers, feel free to add them. As far as the alleged threatened legal action, it's sad that that's what it took to get the editors here to adhere to Wikipedia's policies. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there somethign wrong with having an article without mentioning the negatives unless sources can be found? Ace of Sevens 11:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uh. No. That's why I voted keep. And you did as well. We agree on that but apparently don't agree with Wikipedia's actions being a bad precedent. To me, WP's actions were very justified - it's just unfortunate that things had to go that far to get the policies enforced. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nothing wrong with that, although sources need to be found for a fair bit of the positive spin as well. And if "policy required enforcement" there should be some discounted keeps. Torinir _{( Ding my phone} _{My support calls} _{E-Support Options )} 13:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 :::: So if i understand, if the wikipedia rules don't allow you to delete an article about a game you have never played, then just break wikipedia written rules and destroy it for improving Wikipedia's quality. This remind me something... Perhaps a country declaring war to another for improving the world even if it's against all rules made by ONU. [[User:Graal unixmad|Graal unixmad]] 17:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 ::::: I'm going to ignore that last statement as nothing more than a distracting red herring.  While I do believe there are enough reviews of graal floating around on the web to base an article off of, your edits are obviously acting in bad faith.  You claim that negative comments are deleted by your corporation because of being unreferenced (which is correct in general, although bad form in a long standing dispute without discussion) - HOWEVER, take this statement currently on the page.  "Perhaps Graal's greatest strength is its customizability. An intuitive editor allows even the most technically-inept players to build levels of their own, complete with custom graphics and interactive NPCs. The latter are developed using a simple - yet surprisingly powerful - language named GScript, the syntax of which was loosely inspired by Java and which lately has adapted some semantics of the scripting language of the Torque Game Engine. The target audience of the game has not yet used these features to their fullest extent. [citation needed]".  That entire paragraph, consisting of weasel words such as "greatest strength", "intuitive editor", and "simple-yet surprisingly powerful", was made without a single reference, independent or otherwise, to back it up.  You're acting like an interest group lobbying for your article, obeying the rules only when it suits your position.  That is blatantly abusing Wikipedia policy. [[User:JoshWook|JoshWook]] 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
+:::::: The GraalOnline team have not written the wikipedia Graalonline article (and the part you are talking about), the article has been written by someone called Loriel, this graalonline player is the creator of  'http://wiki.graal.us/' that has no relationship with us. Also have a look at other game article like [[RuneScape]] and tell me if you don't see weasel words, the article is full of make "RuneScape one of the top online games", "Unlike many similar game",  "RuneScape places a lot of emphasis on ... allowing players ", ... [[User:Graal unixmad|Graal unixmad]] 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' as nominator. '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|<font face="tahoma" color="#086F9A">Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant]] <sup>[[User Talk:Daniel.Bryant|(Talk)]]</sup></font>''' 10:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 :Hey I originally said to delete this article :-P  Oh well, but hey its working out right anyway --[[User:Warcaptain|Warcaptain]] 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)