Talk:Neopets/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Neopets has failed, for the following reason:

I find this article has too many disputes. Too much POV to be a good article. Computerjoe's talk 18:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be a little more specific, so we can work on all of the problematic parts? --AySz88^-^ 04:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Though the Controversy is clearly well-maintaned, you can still see traces of POV. Computerjoe's talk 14:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Long article and Criticism section.

This article is about 59 kilobytes long. The Criticism section is about 6 pages long. Perhaps it deserves its own article? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Computerjoe's talk 16:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yea. It's good enough where it is. Ixistant 22:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Wockypedia- the Neopets Wiki"

As an analog to Wookieepedia- the Star Wars Wiki, has anyone thought of making a Neopets wiki? Wockypedia would be perfect. --Shultz IV 11:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Pinkpt has made a neopets wiki. I'll see if I can find the link.Here we go.[1] It cuurently isn't very good though and hence not referenced to. J.J.Sagnella 16:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, someone already tried making a Neopets Wiki -- and it failed. This is where it was rejected. (It's number three on that list) Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 04:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that was rejected because it was a duplicate of this wiki at wikia, which was created. As far as I know, none of the Neopets wikis have gotten very far yet. --AySz88^-^ 04:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The NeoDex at http://www.pinkpt.com/neodex/ looks to be growing rather fast with more Neopians beginning to use it and adding/editing articles as such. Snapshot: As of Monday, 29 May 2006 at 18:38 there were 759 articles on the NeoDex. A pretty big jump from 200 from the previous month. I guess we'll see how good it gets - but so far, looks the most promising.--139.168.3.208 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Favorite Neopets websites

I have a neopets website I am setting up. May I put it under neopets websites? --Laura 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Alas, on wikipedia we only add links to sites with good content which are already high-traffic. But we wish you lots of Luck for your site. J.J.Sagnella 12:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyways. Once its fast-traffic, I will post again. --Laura 22:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Selected Fansites

Could I add the high traffic Dlaa.net, which is a Neopets Adoption Agency? I believe it has the second highest number of traffic as an adoption agency.

Sorry, but it has too little traffic and does not meet the need of why we have links on Wikipedia. We have links so people can go to it if they have finished reading the article and would like more information on the subject, with a level of detail too specific for an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, adoption agencies don't meet the need and hence have no point. J.J.Sagnella 06:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm, how would you know if it gets too little traffic? It gets an average of 350,000 unique hits a month.

Can you at least give a reference which proves its traffic statistics? Anyone can make up a large number. While I'm prepared to believe you, it won't go in unless you can show its high traffic. --Tim 20:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this We can see clearly the link is overpowered on traffic and content by the other links without a question of a doubt. This site has never had a daily reach higher than a million.J.J.Sagnella 20:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Alexa? Computerjoe's talk 20:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not give you proof since I am not authorized to do so. But since you say only Neopets related sites are not allowed, I guess you don't need it afterall. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.167.53.86 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 24 May 2006.

As said Alexa provides proof. For example, Dlaa.net. Computerjoe's talk 07:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Would it be possible to add NeoLodge.com? It's relatively new, but it's traffic isn't bad and it's grown quite a bit (visitor and content wise).

Sorry but Wikipedia is not a link farm or a billboard. Anymore than 4 would be starting to go into Link Farm territory. And if we add this one link then who is to say if we should add say,200 links? Unless you can give a reasoned argument to remove or change one of the links, i'm afraid the answer is no. J.J.Sagnella 14:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO no:Look at this graph [2]. Computerjoe's talk 14:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. JellyNeo has been down quite a bit lately. It's not nearly as reliable as the other sites there. Recently, NeoLodge's traffic has been comparable to JellyNeo's. Also notice NL's is going up, JN's is going down. Also, there's only 4 fansite links ,not 5?

Sorry Good Point. Changed. J.J.Sagnella 19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Doesn't like it's been changed, though?

I know it was a silly typo.. J.J.Sagnella 21:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, are you going to add NL?

Nope. J.J.Sagnella 12:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but is there a reason. It's traffic isn't as much as JN's but it's comparable. The amount of content + frequency of updates is about the same.

I've removed jellyneo.net due to the fact it doesn't really appear special compared to the other sites and is the weakest. Pretty much everything on that site can be found on other sites. If anyone objects, I'll bring jellyneo.net back though. J.J.Sagnella 21

16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I would like to add a link to a Neopets Lottery Ticket Generator that I made. I feel this is a useful tool as it allows users to generate and automatically purchase up to twenty lotto tickets each day, the max allowed by neopets.com. Without this tool the task of generating numbers and manually entering them can be quite tedious. In addition, I feel this would add a bit of diversity to the fan site listings.

I would also like to note that the fan site Jellyneo as listed under external links now seems to be down/ missing.

Jsholm 22:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)jsholm

The link in question is: http://www.jasonholm.com/neolotto.html

Jsholm 22:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)jsholm

A more direct link is: http://www.jasonholm.com/cgi-bin/neolotto.cgi (Sorry for the triple posting)

Jsholm 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)jsholm

I don't feel that this would be considered a "fansite". Though it is a useful tool (and I will personally be trying it) it doesn't seem to be notable enough to be considered a "Selected Fansite". Kalani ^[talk] 23:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Although Jsholm is probably a fan, I can see where one could possibly make a distinction between his site and a fan site. Still, I think this type of resource would be of value to those that would visit this page. A possible method of inclusion for this site is to put it under a new heading for auxiliary tools and programs. I’ve seen a decent number of sites that have simple programs or scrips on them that sell items for you, visit the snowager, run timers, collect interest, etc. a compilation of these sites would be very useful. Also, anyone have a problem with me temporarily removing Jellyneo if it isnt up by tomorrow? I'm not sure how long it has been down. Wirewood Shadow 00:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Wirewood_Shadow

I agree completely. Please Remember the purpose of External Links on Wikipedia, to give extra information, too specific for an encyclopedia. So really we're looking for things like really detailed guides to games, really detailed stuff in general. J.J.Sagnella 08:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, it seems that jellyneo is down for good. I'll remove it, but if anyone objects I'll being it back up. J.J.Sagnella 08:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Are petpages called webbies?

I would like to raise the following question: are petpages really called webbies? I do not know very much about Neopets. Invitatious 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've rarely heard a petpage called a "webbie". Kalani ^[talk] 00:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I have heard be called tham once or twice, but definitely not very often. J.J.Sagnella 06:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It kinda sounds like a short form of "website" (in general). Googling "neopets webbie", it looks like there are a lot of references to "guild webbies" and such. I doubt it's just specific to petpages. --AySz88\^-^ 04:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As a general rule, petpages are called petpages, and webbie is used almost exclusively for guild websites. When a guild website is hosted on (a) petpage(s) then it is often still called a webbie. Hope that helps. --Tim ^{(talk), (contribs)} 15:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nimmo's Pond stolen from Orisinal?

The "accused plagiarism" section states that "Games, such as "Turmac Roll," "Warf Rescue Team," and "Nimmo's Pond," are similar to Orisinal's "Panda Run," "These Little Pigs," and "Hydrophobia""

This is outrageous. Sure, Turmac Roll and Warf Rescue Team, maybe, but Nimmo's Pond is an Asteroids clone. Whatever this Hydrophobia is, let me point out that Asteroids was there first. --Bobadot 08:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the rules of Hydrophobia and Asteroids/Nimmo's Pond are fairly different - though they both feature frogs on lilypads. Perhaps replace that example with "Hasee Bounce"-"It Takes Two". (I distinctly remember that Orisinal's creator noted the similarity between the last two in the "news" section, but he soon took that down and I have to assume that he was somehow appeased.) --AySz88\^-^ 04:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixing and improving the article

The previous Good Article and Featured Article nominations failed. However, I think the article has improved considerably since then, and, with a little work, should qualify for Good Article. I am willing to collaborate with other editors to improve NeoPets into a Good Article.

The main objections in the Featured Article nomination were use of weasel words, lack of citations, the lead section and POV issues.

The use of weasel words, is, I'm afraid, something we cannot avoid. These criticisms are user opinion and most of them are true. It is very difficult to find reliable sources which detail these criticisms. The best resource would be anti-NeoPets sites, forums and statements by top players. However, these will not be considered reliable sources. In addition, I have spotted cases of editors adding names of famous Neopians as examples to prevent weasel-wording. The names were quickly removed.

The most improved aspect of the article is the citations. The number of citations has grown, and a reasonable percentage are third-party references. Although we can still improve in this area, I think it should pass the Good Article criteria for being referenced.

As for the lead section, this will be relatively easy to fix, compared with the weasel wording. It will take me some time and discussions to decide what should go into the lead section. Feedback and suggestions are most appreciated.

Finally, for the POV issues, I do not spot any egregious POV issues in the article. There may be some more subtle issues, but these are beyond my ability, and other editors should work on them.

I hope to collaborate with other editors to make this a Good Article.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(moved from top of page --AySz88\^-^ 04:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

I have already "fixed" the lead a little, at least the bit about having information in the lead that is not detailed in the article. That information (which was all about the company) was moved down into the section about the company, and I wrote a new lead paragraph. --AySz88\^-^ 04:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

(continued) Weasel words: I marked the locations where "obvious" weasel words had been used with "citation needed" tags, especially since there would automatically be a more-specific attribution as soon as a cite is found (it'd be attributed to whoever is the author of the reference). However, the statements must be attributed to a coherent group, not just "some users" or "such and such user", since if it were only from a small number of users, it would not be a notable-enough position for its inclusion in the article. I hope that explains why adding the name of a few famous Neopians (and without a cite, if I remember) doesn't work.

Citing: If we're citing opinions, reactions, or observations of regular users, anti-Neopets sites and forums are fine, just like how PPT forum threads have been cited as evidence of this or that glitch. For in-game data, I think it's good enough to cite non-forum material on fansites (i.e. a guide or NeoColours) as they're as close to authoritative as one can get outside of official Neopets places. --AySz88\^-^ 04:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Controversy too long?

I believe the controversy section to be too long, as do other people. Surely subjects like Hacks and Glitches deserve their own seperate heading, when their content is written with no real link back to the original topic of Controversy - User Critisism.

neopetsfansite.com

I would like to submit the website www.neopetsfansite.com as one of the external link for neopets. this site has all the contents fans will need. (Jerry Heller 00:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)).

I don't think so. The forum has only three members. J.J.Sagnella 08:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

InfamousX241

In the hacks and glitches section, there is a picture with the caption "A page from a letter allegedly sent to "InfamousX241" from Neopets/Viacom." However, there is no mention of InfamousX241 besides the picture and references 29, 30, and 31; which are all alone on an empty line. If InfamousX241 is going to be mentioned in references, there should be some information about him in the article.

I remember alot of info on him, maybe somebody got rid of it? Mightyxjess 07:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Darigan Citadel should've won

I am sure the Neopian people decided that they prefered the Haunted Wooods team better because theyb are: orange and brown; I for one think that sunset pink and red with dark purple is much more satisfying. --Oriana is cool 21:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that Darigan should have won, but I don't think TNT had any influence over who won. -- ~PinkDeoxys~ 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, Darigan lost because of iy's bad rap in plots.

Let's keep three things in mind:

1. Darigan was only really popular during it's plot. And that had more to do with the way the plot was run.

2. The Cup was the first event to involve the Haunted Woods in any major way. DUH, people will side with them.

3. This page is for discussion on improving the quality of the Neopets article. -- Jelly Soup 06:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Jellyneo.net

I think that it should be readded as a fansite due to it being up and running for a while, and has releases os upcoming events relatively early. Hello32020 23:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it owuld be a better idea not to as Wikipedia's rules ask articles to have as fewer unofficial links as possible. Unfortunately jelllyneo's site traffic is lower than the other three and offers unfortunately nothing special, and if it has nothing special then i guess we are just listing fansites for the sake of listing them, and we could fill pages upon pages but that would be useless. J.J.Sagnella 10:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that it is jellyneo that has something special, where the other fansites don't. PinkPT hasn't even updated in the last ten days, and Nothing But Neopets is only a rewrite of the news. Neither of them show how to get the latest avatar, or unreleased news. Jellyneo has both of those and is updated several times a day, and is even listed as the top site on PinkPT's topsite list, which is voted on by players. Where are you getting your traffic figures from? Jibbles | Talk 11:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I stand completely corrected if anyone wants to put it back in, I agree with them. J.J.Sagnella 13:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. In view of Nothing But Neopets low figures, and in keeping with your idea to keep as few unofficial links as possible, I have put it in place of NBN. Jibbles | Talk 14:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course bear in mind the ultimate goal and the ultimnate rule for Wikipedia and fansites is either ONE OR A TOPLIST. Let me know what you think of option 2. It might be better for the article, if we can find a good one. J.J.Sagnella 17:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a toplist would be better. The two I know of are [3] and [4]. I'd be happy with either. Jibbles | Talk 18:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, i don't think they'll do. We need one not owned by a website who is a fansite itself and ideally want to see the three current links on Wikipedia in the first 10. J.J.Sagnella 18:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A handy dandy list of sources you can use

Maintained by Neopets themselves. Go nuts. Also, please cite all sources using the various citation templates. Nifboy 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Soupfaerie, Cloudneo, i-petz are pretty good sources for cheats and lookup backgrounds. --Starry.dreams 23:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. Please read WP:RS to get an idea of what good sources are; fansites are not, The New York Times is. Nifboy 02:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The ridiculous WP:V policy means Neopets will never be well-referenced enough to become a Good Article or Featured Article. Neopets may maintain that list, but the items on the list do not come from Neopets themselves. They come from external newspapers which have offered press coverage on Neopets. Therefore, I believe they are reliable enough. The rule that fansites are not considered reliable will make things difficult for us. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

{{contradict}}? I don't understand the complaint here; The Neopets list links to dozens of reliable articles that we can and should use as sources; the suggestions made in the first reply (although not obvious by virtue of not originally being indented) are a handful of fansites that are not reliable, which is what I was referring to in my second post. Nifboy 04:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(Starry - are you the same starry as the one that owns AvatarLog? If so, nice job; it's an excellent resource for players. However, this aritcle is for people that aren't really familiar with Neopets, not for Neopets players - try a Neopets wiki like PPT's to add cheats and lookup stuff.)

There are very few recent articles on that list (only 2 from this year so far and 7 from last year), so I don't think there's much we can do with those. Most of those articles contain very little information and mostly of the kind that is in the lead paragraph.

I think primary sources from Neopets pages should be okay (i.e. editorial answers and stats). Fansites can be primary sources of fan opinions, and I think some should be okay too (they're "reliable published reports of people's opinions") — I mean, it shouldn't take much to source something like "the number of accounts in actual use is disputed by users". However, I don't know of good Neopets opinion sites. I remember one site used to have some nice analysis, but I'd might have to dig pretty far back in the page history to find it again.

Also, currently, some of the analysis is original research (like the User Criticisms section, especially the paragraphs about TNT's disorganization with tons of editorial links) and needs to be exported off somewhere else. —AySz88\^-^ 14:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Creating separate User criticism page?

Would it be possible to create a separate user criticism page? Other online games (for instance, Maplestory), have separate user criticism pages. This would also make the main Neopets page more stable, as it seems that most anonymous editors choose to edit the criticism section. The total page size of the main Neopets page would be reduced, and we would be more adherent to the NPOV policy. Lmblackjack21 12:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(Welcome! Next time, please be sure to post new messages near the bottom of the page, so people used to the existing format will actually see your message. :) )

I support this idea, and I feel this would probably improve the article greatly. If there aren't any objections within a reasonable period, consider that a go ahead. :) Something like this might even fall under be bold in updating pages - even if it's something big, if it's obvious that it'll improve the article, just do it! —AySz88\^-^ 04:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Include TheDailyNeopets.com on links

TheDailyNeopets.com is probably the fastest growing website with 15 new peices of content uploaded within the last two weeks, at least 1 a day, adding to tis 200+ pages of help and guides. It has slowly but surely gained traffic and whilst not as high as JellyNeo.net, has surpassed its daily traffic on some occasions (of late, it has been a fine contender; although JN had a huge gain in August due to a sitewide puzzle-plot and giveaways). It surpasses NeoLodge.com and NutinButEverything.com. For more info, check the Alexa Traffic Details comparing JN, NL, PinkPT, NBE, NNoN and TDN. I think it should be added onto the fansites list as it is a major contender to some sites, has a growing forum that has only been open for three weeks, has unique features - Safety Center, Alerts, Turmaculus Alert, Cyodrakes Gaze Plot section - and the vast content list is constantly growing. Any thoughts? 86.27.73.0 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Any updates? I ead above about TheDailyNeopets being owned by PPT, and I don't know where the hell he heard that, but it's not true :P It was supported by PPT, who linked to it as a favor, but it is its own site, and is breaking off all connections altogether with PPT; owners had a feud. 86.27.73.0 10:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's quite at the same level as the other three yet, and I'd be more comfortable if it didn't occupy pretty much exactly the same niche as PPT or JellyNeo... Does it have any particular strength relative to those two? —AySz88\^-^ 04:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it has it's Safety Center, game guides that are not on any other site, a newbie guide, the only real indepth Cyodrakes Gaze section. Whilst they are not major strengths, its actively working on two unique sections: Full, indepth Premium section, very much like Letos petpage, which has now shutdown, and was the premier resource for everything Premium. This section is under development (I personally am doing it, this is the Head of Content speaking, hence the complete lack of NPOV :P) and will take over Leto's source as the best around, which has been approved by Leto. Also, three staff members are currently scanning in the last three issues of Neopets Magazine, and a very unique feature is the fact that we'll offer parts of the magazine online to view. We're the only site to offer this. 86.27.73.0 16:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment, scanning in pages from the Neopets magazine might be breaking some sort of copyright. Lmblackjack21 17:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just In My opinion, we should not link to it. We can't just link to websites as they are nearly equalling the current. Wikipedia's rules dictate either one fansite or one fansite directory, so we're trying to gte it down to one of those 2. J.J.Sagnella 17:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Need any more good sources? Here's one.

Click this link and you'll see details of a reliable source you can use in the Neopets article. That link leads to part of the WP:CVG project to create an archive of available offline magazine sources. If you would like a copy of the article, just contact the user specified via User talk or by email, and a scan of the article will be returned.

In this case, the user is me. The magazine article is a 4 page-ish article on the Neopets phenomenon published by the Telegraph Magazine (magazine of the Daily Telegraph). It's a pretty good read, and provides verifiable information from a reliable source. - Hahnchen 03:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, I must comment that I would not use The Daily Telegraph as a good source for anything, due to bad experiences with biased articles back when I was watching Philip Pullman closely. However, I don't know whether the single article in question is as biased as what I've seen before, particularly because Neopets is (I think) a lot less liberal than Pullman. —AySz88\^-^ 04:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, even a poorly argued article can serve as citing for (poorly argued) concerns about Neopets. —AySz88\^-^ 04:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph carries a right wing bias, that's obvious. I'm not sure exactly how that would affect Phillip Pullman article (I remember an excellent article in which Pullman debated Dr Rowan Williams on the subject of religion though). The Neopets article features in the magazine, there's no real subtext, nor is it an advert of some sort. It does feature interviews and covers the history of the site/company. - Hahnchen 04:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What was the debate over the Pullman article about? Any links?I also didn't realise that the Willams/Pullman debate was archived online, which you can see here. - Hahnchen 04:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If the source is considered reliable, I think we should add it as a reference. Hahnchen has sent me some scans of the magazine articles through e-mail, and having played Neopets for 5 years, I can check the accuracy of any information in the magazine article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, "right-wing bias" can pretty much tell you everything you need to know about the nature of the problems with Pullman articles; it wasn't really a "debate" over the articles, just something I noticed as a fan of Pullman. I was kinda worried about them making a big deal out of Scientology.... Alright, I'll take a look at the Neopets article. :) —AySz88\^-^ 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

New Page

I think there should be a page on how that neopet fansites came and went. And how they handled the new neopets polices. And mention great old fansite which have now gone like neonewsnow(the old owner), neoanon, dizzyneo. Since theses should be added since they are what created the main unoffical communty.82.4.149.205 21:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Something like this can't be created on Wikipedia, because it has a policy of No original research. If it is created elsewhere, it might then be cited here, but nothing here is supposed to be original research. —AySz88\^-^ 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Neopets vs Pokemon?

I'm just surprised nobody's compared Neopets to Pokemon.At least not here.Just a thought.-R.G. 02:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a description of the battledome as "Pokémon-like" but I think it was (or should be) removed, since it's not really true. I don't think something like that would really help the Wikipedia article on Neopets. —AySz88\^-^ 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources not cited

Particularly in the "Controversy" section, a LOT of information isn't sourced. For example, "A user with the name "Ad0" once was able to hack into the site, and mess up many pets statistics, something Neopets said was caused by a misfiring lab ray, but no one is certain." Where did this come from? 124.177.40.35 07:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Some anonymous users keep messing around with that paragraph - I'm waiting for the activity to die down some more so that I can (hopefully) quietly remove the whole mess from the article. That section really doesn't belong here. —AySz88\^-^ 02:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree - Controversy does belong there. Peraps only clean up un cited material. I feel a lot of information needs to be kept there. Mightyxjess 07:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism too long

The criticism section is larger then the mian section. It need to eb shortened. Half that stuff no one even cares about anyways and isn't true.

"Neopets has low security compared to yahoo and google"

I have to disagree... neopets is extremely secure. Boo, it has glitches sometimes. Wikipedia goes DFM almost every day. Most large websites do.

It doesnt matter does it? Neopets is full of criticisms, that should be noted i would think. Mightyxjess 07:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)