Difference between revisions of "Talk:Idling"
The Neotank (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Eh, marked for deletion: Not helpful, fuel for controversy, lack of neutral tone, writing style, etc. Sorry. -[[User:The Neotank|<font color="#FF8C00">'''The Neotank'''</font>]] ({{mod}}<small> | [[User talk:The Neotank|Talk]]</small>) [[File:User The Neotank Signeotank.jpg]] 23:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC) | :Eh, marked for deletion: Not helpful, fuel for controversy, lack of neutral tone, writing style, etc. Sorry. -[[User:The Neotank|<font color="#FF8C00">'''The Neotank'''</font>]] ({{mod}}<small> | [[User talk:The Neotank|Talk]]</small>) [[File:User The Neotank Signeotank.jpg]] 23:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
:I don't like this at all – we're not covering controversies now? I disagree that the page requires a full article, however, I don't see why there cannot be at least a section on [[Cheater's Lament]] explaining the controversy. [[User:Seb26|<font color="#0B61A4">'''seb26'''</font>]] [[User talk:Seb26|<span style="font-size:95%;">[talk]</span>]] 04:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC) | :I don't like this at all – we're not covering controversies now? I disagree that the page requires a full article, however, I don't see why there cannot be at least a section on [[Cheater's Lament]] explaining the controversy. [[User:Seb26|<font color="#0B61A4">'''seb26'''</font>]] [[User talk:Seb26|<span style="font-size:95%;">[talk]</span>]] 04:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::Unless reasonable opposition appears soon, I say we delete this. -[[User:The Neotank|<font color="#FF8C00">'''The Neotank'''</font>]] ({{mod}}<small> | [[User talk:The Neotank|Talk]]</small>) [[File:User The Neotank Signeotank.jpg]] 22:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
== suggestion == | == suggestion == | ||
Revision as of 22:58, 13 October 2010
Err...I don't know if this is really apporpriate for a page, as we try to keep controversies out of the wiki. I see you put a lot of hard work into it, so I think the rest of the staff ought to voice whether or not to keep it.--Piemanmoo 22:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Eh, marked for deletion: Not helpful, fuel for controversy, lack of neutral tone, writing style, etc. Sorry. -The Neotank ( | Talk)
23:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC) - I don't like this at all – we're not covering controversies now? I disagree that the page requires a full article, however, I don't see why there cannot be at least a section on Cheater's Lament explaining the controversy. seb26 [talk] 04:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Unless reasonable opposition appears soon, I say we delete this. -The Neotank ( | Talk) 22:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Unless reasonable opposition appears soon, I say we delete this. -The Neotank ( | Talk)
suggestion
"With the onset of the recent Polycount Update, anyone who used SteamStats back before it was patched now received a Cheater's Lament." - this should also indicate that some accounts, that did not receive the first drop, and active only after SteamStats occured, also recieved the Cheater's Lament.Nooch 22:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
However, this piece of information has nothing to do with idling, and everything to do with the Cheater's Lament. File it there, not here. Subtlefuge 23:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
My reasoning
As long as a controversial subject is maintained to be as unbiased as possible, I think it should be allowed. I wrote the page so many newer players can learn what idling is and not begin to think bad thoughts about other players without knowing the full story. Every other day a thread pops up on the forums about idling and the cheater's lament because nowhere really gives unbiased information about both idling in general and the event surrounding it. I really wanted to keep it as unbiased as possible, hence why I avoided popular terms like "Halocaust", so any body who just wants to learn can see what happened and why. Sorry if it caused any unrest. Darthz01 23:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
