From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Anyway we can get a screenshot of the site on here? Sportsandweatherfreak 21:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This page should be deleted. Everyone is just messing around with it. Plus, does a forum really belong on Wikipedia?

IT IS A WEBSITE Sportsandweatherfreak 21:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I messed up the 5th reference. Can anyone fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I can't quite tell what you were going for. I removed the text that was breaking the citation code and replaced it with a citation needed template. Let me know if there is something else I can do to help. Stardust8212 14:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Owned[edit]

Firstly, I don't understand how relevant it is to mention RealGM as a "Jewish owned" website?

Secondly, the claim is unsubstantiated. If the person who put it there originally can't verify this claim then I will remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyByrne (talkcontribs) 04:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


Realgm has experienced a great deal of trouble in dealing with its volunteer legion of message board moderators. Moderators have caused numerous problems, including exacting personal vendettas against other posters, using moderator powers to promote a particular political agenda, and generally being careless and flippant in their disciplinary practices.

The above paragaraph is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article on this topic. It is no attributed to a reliable source and as such appears to original research on the part of the anonymous editor who continues to add it back into the article. Beyond that it is also a problem that nearly every message board that has ever existed has claimed to have and for that reason is not a notable item of interest. I'm removing it again, if someone sees a good reason to leave it in the article please discuss it here. Stardust8212 12:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Look up any organization, company, individual, book, movie, article, etc., and you will find that the controversies surrounding the same are an integral part of its encyclopedic entry. It need not be attributed to any "source." As you may or may not have noticed, dozens of people have supported the claim by fixing your persistent vandalism. It is not a problem of "nearly every message board that has ever existed." If that is your take on it, than you are woefully uneducated as to the happenings of realgm, and therefore, not qualified to comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedias core policies include verifiability and citing reliable sources. Your claim that the information doesn't need to be attributed to a source is not in line with Wikipedia policy. Controversies are only notable and worthy of inclusion if they have been written about by a reliable source. Also please don't make claims that my good faith efforts are vandalism, it is very insulting. If you provide a source that meets Wikipedia's standards I would be more than happy to include this piece of information in the article. Stardust8212 01:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that if this quote is to stay then there should be sources found to back it up, or else it should be removed, particularly as it does provide a negative aspect of RealGM. The sources should no be forums, and instead should be reliable sources to back up the claims. Also, the way it is written at present, isn't very neutral so if it is to be kept, it should be re-written to meet our neutral point of view policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What type of sources are you looking for? This is an internet sports forum. Not exactly the type of thing that newspapers write about. But that doesn't make it any less true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

For information on what is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards consider reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It might not be mentioned in any reliable sources which would indicate that this is not a notable aspect of RealGM, this is what I was trying to express in my original comments. Also remember that Wikipedia isn't always about saying everything that is true about a topic, or to quote Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Stardust8212 21:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It is continually being added by someone who was removed from the forums, probably someone by the name of Majorleads. FancyPants 00:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. And, I might add, irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessarily irrelevant if it constitues a conflict of interest on the user's part. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for someone to come when they have an axe to grind. Stardust8212 18:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)\

Please cease your continued vandalizing. The information is accurate and sourced. None of the sources are blogs. You must do your reading, as I do not think you know what wikipedia's guidelines are.

Instead of arguing, read WP:RS. Jacona (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
As pointed out multiple times, I did. But I can only assume that you did not. As requested previously, please consider reading:reliable source. "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". Hence the qualifier: "There have been reports...." I understand you are doing the best you can with the limited understanding you have of what a "reliable source" is. You'll get there eventually. Just remember, before you go editing other people's research, take the time to study and think first. You'll be able to avoid this type of embarrassment in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Someone does not understand WP:RS. That someone is not JaconaFrere. The reliable source policy is clear. Anything that is user-edited (and that includes Wikipedia) is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. All of the references the IP are so vehemently defending are user edited. If you doubt that, 98etc, take it to the reliable source noticeboard for a ruling. (WP:RSN). However, the prudent editor would realize that when two experienced editors are telling him exactly the same thing, odds are they are right and he is wrong. John from Idegon (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
This is because you don't understand the context. The sources, which per Wikipedia policy can be used as reliable sources under certain circumstances, are not being used to prove the veracity of the claims being made, but to demonstrate the existence of the claims themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree with 98etc. It is important for everyone to read and understand Wikipedia:Reliable sources policies. This is a clear instance of where the "...sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErerfAnocaj (talkcontribs) 23:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
What has changed in four years? Nothing! While this information is true, it is not any more encyclopedic than it was then. It is true of every message forum, it is not reliably sourced...just blogs and other self-sourced references. Someone however feels so strongly about it that for four years they keep putting it back in spite of regular efforts of good editors to remove it.Jacona (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Once more you have allowed your ego to stand in the path of truth. This poster is clearly within the guidelines of what constitutes a reliable source. If not, explain, specifically, how this is not an instance where the inclusion is acceptable per "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion...."— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
The relevant section isn't the one quoted but WP:USERGENERATED. The purpose of WP:RS is to ensure that statements of facts or opinions in the article are sourced to reliable sources. Using the IP's interpretation would allow any source to be used as long as the text begins with a qualifier. That's against the basic purpose of WP:RS, and as such an incorrect interpretation. Sjö (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It is clear you do not understand which fact is being stated. The issue is not whether the fact being sourced is accurate, but that the opinion exists in the first place. It does not allow "any" source. I suggest you read up more on wikipedia guidelines as you are obviously not up to speed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
The matter is well settled, and the majority agree that the sources are reliable for the purposes presented. Please refrain from further editing of this issue. User:ErerfAnocaj — Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia definitions of a reliable source do not include WP:USERGENERATED articles. There is no reliable source for this information, nor is it encyclopedic. Nor is it appropriate to make a username for the sole purpose of annoying another editor. Please change it, or quit WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, as you have now done on several articles. Also, please remember to sign your posts using four tilde's. Jacona (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
That you think that anyone would create an ID just to annoy you just shows how large your ego is. This is in fact encyclopedic. Every movie, book, magazine, TV show, etc, with a Wikipedia article contains information related to how it is critically received. Your argument is patently ridiculous on its face. There is a clear exception to the user generated sources which you routinely, and conveniently, ignore. You refuse to engage in any real discussion, because deep down you know you are wrong, and simply can't admit it. Please allow yourself to get over your ego. User:ErerfAnocaj 3 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a section about reception, it's called "In the media". This, like any other section, has to be supported by reliable sources. It's only you who think that the guidelines for sourcing allows usergenerated sources for the kind of statements of fact that you want to add. Besides, WP:UNDUE is also relevant in this case. The lack of coverage in reliable sources indicate that the criticism isn't worth mentioning, but that's secondary to the question of verifiability, in my opinion. Sjö (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

And here we are again. [1] doesn't support the statements, the rest of the references are usergenerated and as such not reliable sources. Not only that, but because it hasn't been mentioned in media, it's also WP:UNDUE. I'm removing the text. Sjö (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It does support the statements. Please read again. Also, the references are permitted under Wikipedia policy to demonstrate the author's opinion.User:Stopharrassinggoodfaithedits — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The author's opinion is original research, there is a policy about that. reliable sources are needed. Self sources are permissible to provide information about themselves, but not about others. Jacona (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The author's opinion is relevant in that the matter being stated is that the opinions exist. The statement in question is not whether the opinions themselves are valid or factual, but rather than that have been made by others. That the criticism exists at all is the question, not whether the criticism is valid. If you would take 2 seconds to acknowledge this, you could avoid all this silliness. At this point, you're more interested in your own ego and getting your "Way" than you are in actually looking at the argument and making a logical, reasonable, decision. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Please quote the text in the Sports Business Daily source that supports the statements. Sjö (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nba-header.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Nba-header.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)