Could anyone of the IPs removing the sourced mention of the real name please explain why Eurogamer should not be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards? Regards So Why 07:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
minhanoo Inari kon kon ( talk) 21:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Why dont u show your face? Inari kon kon ( talk) 21:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
As I am doing editing on another article (Valve's, highlighting the new case about Dota's ownership), it should be noted that this court record identifies IceFrog's legal name, which is also repeated in this ArsTech article. That may or may not be sufficient (BLPPRIVACY still should be considered) but just wanted to drop these here in case. -- MASEM ( t) 19:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Would it be worthwhile to add sections about IceFrogs repeated content theft from other modders from wc3sear.ch? Im not sure if its anything that could cause lawsuits, since it hasnt up to this point afaik, but it is something thats well known amongst war3 modders, particularly from that site (which was a major war3 modder site, now called The Hive Workship afaik). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.146.157 ( talk) 19:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Salavat, Prisencolin, and Dissident93: How about making this page an 'article for improvement' in WikiProject Video Games? Would that be possible? Dat Guy Talk Contribs 13:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I personally do not care about the name, whether someone is anonymous or not. Some people are upset when they are no longer anonymous, others are not. I also remember one example where someone stopped contributing code after his real name was revealed, which was a loss for that given language community. But anyway, what I am trying to say here is this - the article links in to a court document, and at the least one name is mentioned (in that document). So IF this court document is real (which we all can assume that it is right? We don't expect US courts to publish wrong documents), and IF it points to the one under the pseudonym (aka IceFrog), then I think that the wikipedia main article should also list that as name. Unless of course anyone is able to state that the court document would refer to someone else. 2A02:8388:1602:A780:D598:E8F0:E15C:7B9C ( talk) 20:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Could anyone of the IPs removing the sourced mention of the real name please explain why Eurogamer should not be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards? Regards So Why 07:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
minhanoo Inari kon kon ( talk) 21:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Why dont u show your face? Inari kon kon ( talk) 21:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
As I am doing editing on another article (Valve's, highlighting the new case about Dota's ownership), it should be noted that this court record identifies IceFrog's legal name, which is also repeated in this ArsTech article. That may or may not be sufficient (BLPPRIVACY still should be considered) but just wanted to drop these here in case. -- MASEM ( t) 19:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Would it be worthwhile to add sections about IceFrogs repeated content theft from other modders from wc3sear.ch? Im not sure if its anything that could cause lawsuits, since it hasnt up to this point afaik, but it is something thats well known amongst war3 modders, particularly from that site (which was a major war3 modder site, now called The Hive Workship afaik). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.146.157 ( talk) 19:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Salavat, Prisencolin, and Dissident93: How about making this page an 'article for improvement' in WikiProject Video Games? Would that be possible? Dat Guy Talk Contribs 13:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I personally do not care about the name, whether someone is anonymous or not. Some people are upset when they are no longer anonymous, others are not. I also remember one example where someone stopped contributing code after his real name was revealed, which was a loss for that given language community. But anyway, what I am trying to say here is this - the article links in to a court document, and at the least one name is mentioned (in that document). So IF this court document is real (which we all can assume that it is right? We don't expect US courts to publish wrong documents), and IF it points to the one under the pseudonym (aka IceFrog), then I think that the wikipedia main article should also list that as name. Unless of course anyone is able to state that the court document would refer to someone else. 2A02:8388:1602:A780:D598:E8F0:E15C:7B9C ( talk) 20:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)