From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nominee M.U.G.E.N was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 29, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
March 19, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
September 23, 2009 Articles for deletion Kept
Current status: Former good article nominee
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unable to Edit[edit]

I was attempting to revise the wording of the last sentence in the History section to remove the '1 Vs. 1' specification. With the addition of 'Exhibition Matches', '2 vs. 1' and '2 vs. 2' matches are now a common occurrence. However, every attempt to edit was blocked as possible vandalism. Would someone please take a look at updating the sentence to end in something akin to: "... on matches played between CPU-controlled participants using the engine"?


  -S.Y 31st July 2014  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4:0:266:C8B6:51DA:FF79:A4DF (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 


Links one more time[edit]

This article is not a repository for forum links. Only put official mugen related links please. Acglass (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

mugen title?[edit]

is it possible to change the title on mugen which reads "M.U.G.E.N"?-- (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC) jghsgdgretyffdgftfydtft sonic.exe mugen

Archive #2 Up[edit]

Let's try to follow the "Not a Forum" rules this time, okay? Blacklist 23:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Links[edit] (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC) I think there is no need to post two Portuguese sites dealing with M.U.G.E.N ... Let us clean it up a little. Either delete MugenBR or PaoDeMugen. I also cannot understand why "MUGEN Latino America" is listed there. Please clean the page up a little bit for my sake :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There are too many links to mugen forums. Remove Either delete MugenBR or PaoDeMugen and add that is not a forum , is updated constantly and has lots of relevant information about mugen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carljonyfriend (talkcontribs) 21:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not notable, plus see the comment below. Blacklist (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Validity of new[edit]

A viewing of the whois database entry for reveals that the domain was registered 1, June 1999 and will expire on 1, June 2008. Therefore the name's registration has not lapsed and been re-registered by someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the domain was registered by someone other than Elecbyte. Blacklist (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please consider one of the many M.U.G.E.N. clones. Oh right, shoot in your own feet........................................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisaccountisreal (talkcontribs) 20:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh... they mean Engine clones, not Developer clones. Blacklist (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Boy oh boy, this page is hard to read. It's like I asked a local weeaboo to explain M.U.G.E.N. to me... But, I asked Wikipedia to! This should be written more like an encyclopedic article and not a readme or something. Honestly, I don't even see a reason to have maybe even 2/3 of the content that is here; the history of the program may interest some, but is this the place for it?

The characters section is particularly narrative also. I don't see a need for the arbitrary backstory to the characters. The bit about Kung Fu Man should be only about as long as its first paragraph.

Suave Dude: He at the very least has a troop of minions at his disposal (some of which get defeated in KFM's introduction storyboard), and has the Mountainside Temple as his own personal hideout. The full extent of his forces or resources however is unknown and never disclosed or discussed.

What on earth?! We're not in a fantasy land.

It doesn't seem necessary to be so specific about the Maxine and Dragon Claw characters. Rather, a summary making the key points could get rid of both sections by mentioning that people commission characters, though few are completed (then citing a source), and that characters, noteably Dragon Claw, have been merchandised (cite source). I don't care how some guy paid a ludicrous amount of money for a girl version of himself he can use to whomp on people with, and I don't care that the Dragon Claw guy doesn't make enough money to cover his "hosting and such". Note the inappropriate tone in the phrase "and such".

The whole file structure section should be deleted. It's not useful information for the article, and it is WAY too long. If anyone cares about it, they probably can look at the files themselves, along with the documentation.

This article is longer than the entire article for Adobe Photoshop. Photoshop has had much more impact on things than mugen...

Other issues include:

[towards the end of the article...] ... distribution of updates, or as in the case of Mugen Institute a possible loss of revenue.

Things like this are all over this article, making it hard to read through a line in one go.

Although most of the authors have not registered copyrights pertaining to the code or graphics used to create the content ...

It hasn't been a law that you have to register copyrights (in the US) for years.

Much like hosting a videogame FAQ it is considered in violation of the author's copyright unless permission to host is given. [...] Typically it is argued that legal action is not sought for the misuse of most M.U.G.E.N creations because the origin of sprites and sounds has been ripped from commercial games even though the program code is crafted from scratch or templates.

Linking to something like derivative works could cut this chunk out. The same idea goes for many other parts of the article.

The debate ranges from original design by authors as well as derivative works or fan art often taken directly from previously released video game characters. A violation of ...

The MUGEN article isn't a place to re-explain copyright laws. Let Wikipedia do it. Also, that first part's a fragment, and a very confusing one, at that.

Summary: Too many words. Little relevant content. Informal tone, syntax, and constructs. Needs more commas. (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • You need a fucking job. Nanakon (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    •,If it needs more commas and stuff,then why can't you do it? (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bloated, filled with non-notable information.[edit]

In response to these problems, I have taken the liberty of cleaning up the article to make it concise and more encyclopedic. Grawgzor (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be the first to say while the article does indeed need work...that was a terrible edit on your part.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I might have gone overboard, but much of the content should be deleted. Suave dude has no relevance, and the reception section actually cites internet forum discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grawgzor (talkcontribs) 21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Given he's Elecbyte's other character I fail to see the relevance, and the forum citations seem very few but relevant to the subject as far as temporary goes. Either way you have two editors objecting to your "trimming", I'd suggest not doing it a third time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If you go through the problems with each section in greater detail, I may go along with your revision. Oore (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I say that the File Structure and noteworthy engine content gets axed, but getting rid of 90% of the article that was originally edited by Grawzor is not the answer. Blacklist (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't axe the whole sections either really, though File Structure really could be redone overall. TESTP additionally needs some mention in there, though it's a shame the only citable info about them is long gone save for their readme files.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Overboard? You really destroyed the entire article :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The real meaning of MUGEN?[edit]

Apparently, refers to mugen as infinity.

This seems to make sense because of mugen's limitless customizable features. Maybe this is what Elecbyte meant when he made the engine.

~DHB —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

  • We already know the definition of it in Japanese, however M.U.G.E.N is an abbreviation for something, possibly from when it was being made as a shooter engine. We just don't know it, and there is no way for us to find out. --Nanakon (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Then is it coincidental? Or was it meant to be like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How can it be an acronym when the 'N' clearly isn't punctuated? I think it's entirely for stylistic purposes, not an acronym. Of course, we can't say for sure, the 'N' being unpunctuated certainly is important. (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[edit]

I think this quote puts it nicely, "Wikipedia is not a depository for unvalued websites with bunch of google adverts. Please do not add website that hasn't got encyclopedic character."

If any of you Anons continue to add this link (and vandalize other links in the process), I will not hesitate to report you for breaking the 3 revisions rule. Blacklist (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Spam. Blacklisted. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse Me...[edit]

... What is the best place to get MUGEN (that's not in Japanese)? And, how in the heck to you upload Characters for MUGEN?-- (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverted to an older, unvandalized version[edit]

I've noticed Kaos Machina tried to revert the vandalizing, but I think he picked the wrong version, as that version didn't really make all that sense either, so I've taken the liberty to actually revert it to the first un-vandalized version. Excuse me if I reverted it to a wrong version though.

--GaryCXJk (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC) is untrustworthy[edit]

I don't trust this site because a lot of major MUGEN sites despised Vyx's doings to the MUGEN engine. He's doing a High Res, no, Hi-Definition MUGEN with he always sells it in the internet WITHOUT the original author's permissions. It's really against the rules of the fighting game engine and therefore, it's not a good thing to the MUGEN community. That link should be deleted or else.

--Blackgaia02 (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I totally agree. Vyx have hosted stolen content before, he have been banned from almost all major MUGEN forums and that he is trying to sell a edit of MUGEN is totally absurd.
Went ahead and removed the link. No need to promote unlawful actions here. Blacklist (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources to be implemented[edit]

The current references are quite weak, but these are possibilities:

There are some other links suggested in the AfD, but they don't appear to be WP:RS. Marasmusine (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest starting development over for the article on a subpage for it? Such as M.U.G.E.N/redux?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC) is there AGAIN[edit]

AND please, we had enough of Vyx's untrustworthy works. Someone please BAN him in Wikipedia and remove it!

--Blackgaia02 (talk) 9:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah and he doesnt have his facts quite right, so removed

Laxxe23 (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

BrokenMugenHD is not Mugen. A guy name Vyx changed an option in the configuration file of Mugen (Something that you are suppose to do anyway) And claimed he invented a new mugen. He also tried selling this not even hacked version of Mugen. The screenpack used in his non-version of mugen was not made by him, and is also considered stolen.

He is a thief and violating several copyright laws and apparently Wikipedia supports copyright infringement because they have not banned him. MOTVN (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Vyx is a user that changing configurations on the mugen engine ( like one is supposed to) decided to create a business model around it, claiming the engine as his own and claiming material done by others as being part of "his" business, then going around claiming to be the official thing. He has, amidst other things, tried to pretend to be other persons, advertized himself over the original copyrighted material, took over material done by others without any knowledge on it and claimed it his, threatened violence on members of the community( having effectively attacked one such member on the street), claimed to be rich and thus being above the law and made demands about having his publicity posted on personally owned websites and foruns.

He is considered a crook and a spammer, even by Elecbyte themselves ( the creators of the engine)

He seems to be after a constant of E-fame and self promotion over work he isnt even aware of how its done, always claiming to be a team of "workers" of which he is a "voice". User:Tareco —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Link (revisited)[edit]

The links have recently been edited to remove certain items. We all know there are litereally thousands of possible mugen related links of websites with content downloads and forum communitites. I am listing the reasons for each of the current links found here, please discuss if you disagree.

I should also note that all the sites listed below are over 3 years old since the person who was editing the links wrote that Random Select and Infinity Mugen Team were each less than 2 years old.

  • Elecbyte - the new Elecbyte Site, although only 2 months old, is currently upgrading the Mugen engine so this is relavent
  • Mugen Fighters Guild - is the most active Mugen community by the age of their forum, the number of daily active users and post count.
  • Infinity Mugen Team - is the second largest Mugen forum by daily active members as well as a large amount of original content downloads, news, database and special interest projects. Infinity aslo runs multi language forums including English, Spanish, Portugues and Japanese.
  • Mugen Infantry - has historically been one of the most activy communitites which also provides a current database and a library of original content downloads as well.
  • MugenBR - is also an active mugen community and the only one on the list that is not based in the United States. The contribution of the Brazilian community is important to the history of mugen as well as the original download content currently available at this site.
  • Random Select - contains additional large amounts of original content such as those listed above as well as the only site hosting all the previous version of mugen, including the dos version, linux version and various windows versions.

Acglass (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I was with the impression that infinity and infantry were both less than 2 years old ( not randomselect tho). I was trying to revert the link list to the one previous to vyx edits. I kinda failed a few times since im not that good with wikis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I should also mention that all the above sites have 4 things in common, an active forum, original mugen content development, current updates and have been well established for over 4 years.Acglass (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Removed CVG from links, Wikipedia is not a link depository. (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I removed Mugen Germany from the links as well. It's a brnad new forum with only 124 users and no content development. It may be more appropraite to be on a German Wiki page though. (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M.U.G.E.N. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M.U.G.E.N. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Attempts to suppress a source[edit]

Some user is trying to suppress a valid and perfectly factual source. Reason invoked : does not require a source. My question is : who are you to decide it does not require a source? I think the reason invoked has no ground at all, and I consider this source removal vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CobraSA (talkcontribs)

First, stop calling people who disagree with you vandals. Second, in general, you're more likely to get your way occasionally around here if you don't immediately assume you're right and everyone else is wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the statement requires a source because you can't post a figure and not back it up, otherwise you could say "40 trillions people died during the world war 2, no need to back up this figure according to wikipedia, deal with it". The link points to a file repository which happens to display a file counter, so I'm not sure how this could not be considered a valid source for the figure in the statement. I'm going to revert the edit now, because removing a valid source completely goes against wikipedia policies. (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires reliable sources, not just any source, and forums are not reliable sources. See the identifying reliable sources for help on that. Ravensfire (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The source here is not a forum (despite the misleading url) but a content repository which as pointed out provides a content counter which directly confirms the figure stated in the article. How is this direct proof unreliable? Please explain as if I was six years old. CobraSA (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm with cobra here, this is yet another example of lazy and incompetent wikidedian admin, if they had bothered to check the article statement and the source itself, there would be no debate. They make even the most simple thing complicated due to their shallowness.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuwed1 (talkcontribs) 17:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I am honestly confused as to why the source is considered "not reliable" when it provides a counter calculated by a computer software. It's as objective as it can get, unless you have evidence to prove the counters are faked. It's not a forum post where some random user made a statement, it a directory with a content counter. For anyone who missed the source we're talking about here is it : Everyone can tell that this doesn't look like a message board post, so yes, I guess they really didn't check it at all. CobraSA (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I checked your link Cobra. Definitely a forum, and hence not reliable. Simples. -Roxy the dog. bark 19:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
You haven't checked that specific url : You haven't because anyone can tell this is not a message board page. CobraSA (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Guy, it's a page ON A MESSAGE BOARD. It's still user-generated data -- i.e., what it is the users of the message board are doing -- whether that data is handcrafted, produced by elves, or using software. The site ITSELF doesn't pass the reliable source standard. --Calton | Talk 03:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have checked that page, as well as several others on that site, and I explained exactly why it is still unusable at Bishonen's talk page. Basically, it does not meet our criteria for a reliable source, and is (inevitably for a repository of elements for an open source work of software, but nonetheness) still user-generated content, even though it is UGC which has been aggregated from elsewhere on the site and the web. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
First the statement in the WP article is about community generated content, secondly what matters here is the items counter, which is calculated by computer software and can not be modified by users, you still don't get that part? You can't modify these counters to fit your opinions, this is objective data. CobraSA (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
And you know all this how? Even if we buy your claim of certainty -- that it really is computer-generated and is producing valid data for that particular site, GIGO: the source ITSELF isn't reliable. --Calton | Talk 03:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
CombraSA, I can tell you with absolute confidence (and prove it to you if necessary) that " calculated by computer software and can not be modified by users," is a fundamental misunderstanding of how computers work, and a somewhat-more-forgivable misunderstanding of how phpBB, the software they are using works. I can change how any software calculates numbers so long as it is installed on a machine on which I am an admin in a few hours, and that I can change how phpBB calculates numbers on any machine I have remote or physical access to in about 15 seconds. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'll see if a compromise is acceptable. WP:IRS tells us that a self-published site may be a reliable source for information about itself (see sections WP:UGC and WP:SELFSOURCE) I've added a sentence to the Customisation section noting that the source in question ("MUGEN archive") has about 40,000 user-contributed files available for download. That provides something for the lead to summarise, and probably is an acceptable piece of information for this topic. Considering the lamentable state of referencing throughout the rest of the article, I would have thought that efort would be better spent on trying to add sourced content to it. --RexxS (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I saw your edit, and I'm okay with using the site to make a statement about how many fighters are available on that site. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I did sample a few sub-sections before I made the edit, and the numbers certainly look credible. The only question I have remaining is why CobraSA picks that site to fixate on, rather than any of the dozen other sites that he removed from the External links section as "irrelevant spam". --RexxS (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing. There's also a brand new account (Zuwed1) who has been reverting and defending CobraSA by insulting me and WP as a whole. 5 edits, and Every. Single. One. contains incivility or a personal attack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

MUGENArchive is a "Fan Forum" to me without a doubt, CobraSA and Zuwed1 still deny this? also their behavior is disrespectful.Kurt R. (Zirukurt01) 16:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

mugenarchive has a forum, it's not just a forum. most news sites have a forum for news comments and they're still considered valid source, the page that is being linked as a source is not a forum post nor a forum page, that's all that matters. I think you already know that and you're either trolling or have a bias or an agenda here. Toboyof (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I added a warning on your profile page for posting false information on purpose. Toboyof (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The point is not simply that the site is made from forum software (looks like phpBB), but that its content is user generated, i.e. there is no system to validate whatever is written there and anyone may contribute. Wikipedia has a policy which normally disallows such content from being used, called WP:UGC, and you need to read that to understand why other, more experienced editors are objecting to the use of the site. However, an exception can occur: such sites are often accepted as sources of information about themselves WP:SELFSOURCE. It is therefore not forbidden to mention it in the section of the article dealing with user-generated customisation, and I've added a short description there, along with the reference. Nevertheless the first paragraphs of an article, which we call the "lead", are intended to summarise key points about the subject and for that reason do no normally contain references – see WP:LEAD. The site itself is not important enough – there are many similar ones – to be included in the lead and that is why editors are removing it. --RexxS (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The point (stated many times and which you pretend to not understand) is the links provides a file counter that is calculated by a computer, so it is objective data, not forum opinion. Secondly there is a figure in the lead, and the link to the computer generated counter aims to provide a source for that figure, your argument is invalid, the figure must be sourced where it is first mentioned. CobraSA (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Why must the rough figure "thousands" be sourced where it is first mentioned? WP:LEAD says otherwise. Why is this site important enough to be in the lead and other sites, including the Official Elecbyte website are removed as "irrelevant spam"? --RexxS (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello RexxS, it seems this person also called me a liar for being involved in removing "MUGENArchive". I know Stickkyy removed the "Fan Forum" but i'm not involved in removing "MUGENArchive". Also, i'm suspecting Zuwed1 and CobraSA are the same person just by looking at the contributions or i could be wrong. Kurt R. (Zirukurt01) 13:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I have issued a warning for attacking people you disagree with, and accusing them of wrongdoings without a proof. CobraSA (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kurt: This sort of activity is also sometimes indicative of an off-wiki "campaign" by users of a forum/google group/etc. to make sure that Wikipedia recognises their favourite site (as they would see it). I guess that regular contributors to would feel that we are suppressing what to them is an important site. My advice is to revert or ignore the personal attacks without further comment and concentrate on trying to educate new editors about our policies and conventons here. Reasonable people will eventually understand; those with an axe to grind, whether socks or fanboys, will consistently fail to adhere to our policies and will eventually be shown the door. It takes some time, but is the most productive inthe long run. --RexxS (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Is this an accusation? CobraSA (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
See your talk page. --RexxS (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Answered in my talk page. CobraSA (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The point (stated many times and which you pretend to not understand) is the links provides a file counter that is calculated by a computer, so it is objective data
And the point (stated many times and which you seem to pretend to not understand) is a) "calculated by computer" from a unreliable source is still an unreliable source (see GIGO; b) as MjolnirPants points out above, you have a "...fundamental misunderstanding of how computers work, and a somewhat-more-forgivable misunderstanding of how phpBB, the software they are using works"; and c) this is not our first rodeo, and sock-/meat-puppeting is common enough to leave an obvious pattern, so pointing out said pattern is attacking anyone. --Calton | Talk 16:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Use of in Wikipedia[edit]

Several single-purpose accounts have been edit-warring to insert a reference to into the lead of this article. I have offered a compromise that was acceptable to MjolnirPants, that is, mentioning the site specifically in the Customisation section and sourcing to itself per WP:SELFSOURCE. Nevertheless the campaign to insert the relatively unimportant site into the lead continues with no attempt to accept a compromise. That needs to be seen against the background of an earlier removal of mention of a dozen other similar sites from the article, including the Official Elecbyte website.

I conclude that this is a campaign conducted by fans of the site to promote their site. It's obvious that CobraSA and his meatpuppets are on a single agenda.

I therefore propose that we blacklist and remove all mention of the site to avoid future disruption. We can always discuss the other sites to give readers an idea about the number of characters created by users. --RexxS (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer --RexxS (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per consistent sock/meat puppetry. Stikkyy t/c 21:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: as both CobraSA and Toboyof are currently blocked, it's probably moot whether there's any need to have the domain blacklisted. I suggest we wait until CobraSA is able to resume editing before re-assessing that need. --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: The case of "sockpuppetry" may have been solved. If CobraSA still does any rude behavior, he'll be permblocked for his own good. Kurt R. (Zirukurt01) 22:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support at least temporarily until the push to include it dies down and we can re-evaluate. For example, I'm okay with the phrasing of RexxSS's recent compromise edit, but I don't want to see that used as an excuse to argue endlessly that this is an RS when it's so obviously not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. CobraSA is back and at it again. --Calton | Talk 06:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Getting tired of CobraSA not learning the lessons. Kurt R. (Zirukurt01) 17:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)