Talk:Söldner: Secret Wars

Untitled

This page has been vandalized, important info on cheats / UNPATCHED server exploits has been wiped.

I did not vandalize this article, I just removed statements that weren't proven. As you can see in Talk:Söldner - Secret Wars I asked for sources telling about your cheats, but you named none. --Akrisios 09:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If you stop removing my edits that state that cheats exist, I'll just release my compendium of private glitches and hacks that I have built by infiltrating several clans / exploiting their websites to view their forum PMs and private posts. It will totally destroy the soldner online community until a new patch comes out- which is doubtful.

)

Added information

I just added some information on the history of the game. Additionally I updated the version number to the most current version.--Schranzkopp (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schranzkopp (talk • contribs) 21:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Remove ref tag?

Every statement is now cited, several still cite the Soldner community website for game features but most now go to reviews detailing features and the history of transition from JoWood to community control.79.176.110.60 (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 dec outage

Undoing revision 930027201 by Eik Corell (talk) the community for years owns all former jowood soldner assets/IP, all transferred to them by jowood's at dissolution, ie if google was displaying an error message when google search was down we can trust google error message and can cite same for the day down. At this point you need to get a consensus before you do any more edits, please respect the no edit wars rule you two reverts are expended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.1.239 (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear here, citing a fan site as the source of what the front page says is original research. This might be fine if the site or project was the subject of the article, for example stating what an organisation's website states their goals to be, but the article is not about the state of this community site. In other words, unless this receives coverage by reliable third-party sources, it's not Wikipedia's job to contain status reports on community websites, especially not using said sites as sources on themselves. Eik Corell (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You have violated the 2x rollback rule this becomes abuse now no matter what your unbacked opinion. The game's official website is NOT a fan site just like google.com or whitehouse.gov are not fan-sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.1.239 (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Sent links to User_talk:Eik_Corell to learn about Wikipedia:Reverting and Wikipedia:Edit warring79.182.1.239 (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Several issues here: I can't find any sources about this being the "official" site, I haven't been able to find any information about the handover of the source code, either, despite that obviously having happened. Going from there, calling it an official site is making a lot of assumptions. Quite a few developers have done this before, without any acknowledgement of whoever received the source code becoming official in any capacity, so to assume that this is now the official game site is a stretch, even if it's the closest thing available, or the most notable one due to having received code from the developers. Even if it was the official site, devoting a section of the article to the condition of said site is still inappropriate for a multitude of reasons, with the way it's being done here raising WP:OR and WP:FANSITE concerns. Somewhat peripherally, WP:ELNO seems to disqualify the site at least as an external link per #16 (sites not functioning reliably). WP:ELOFFICIAL addresses it more directly: "No official link exists for many articles. "Fansites", including everything from websites run by fans of a musician to a charitable organization supporting patients with a disease, even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites because the subject of the article cannot control the information being presented." In other words, them receiving source code from the developers may give the idea that it's official or somehow endorsed, but that doesn't mean it's an official site. That obviously is intended to deal with the addition of external links, but it's relevant here as well when we're talking about whether something is official or not. Eik Corell (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Gave it over a month for emotions to cool off, this is wikipedia not a news site so no rush. We can take the decade of history of an unchanged link to the official website as a very strong community consensus that the official website of record https://www.soldnersecretwars.de/ is the official website. In any case you have exceeded the edit warring policy of wikipedia with your reverts it is up to you to bring in a consensus team when you go that route not go for a forth revert; please respect the spirit and letter of the rules. Anyone wishing to dispute this can view the wayback machine archives going abck to 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20110901000000*/www.soldnersecretwars.de/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.60.148 (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Many articles have problems with inappropriate content, this is not the same as consensus around content, it can also mean -- and on video game articles mostly does mean -- that nobody with knowledge of WP:VG/GL has gotten around to addressing the problems. All my edits here I'm basing off of the guidelines I've mentioned, namely WP:OR, WP:ELOFFICIAL, so if you think I've misinterpreted them somehow, make your case, but WP:ELOFFICIAL is unusually clear in its rejection of fansites as official, and #16 of WP:ELNO also applies: Sites that don't function reliably. To then devote a section of the article to reporting on the state of that fansite is not appropriate. With all of that in mind, I can't see much that you would object to with my edit here. That is to say that the previous version was using an unreliable (and not working website) as a source, along with a file's entry on a file upload site(the gamepressure one). In contrast, the IGN and Rockpapershotgun articles are both reliable and functioning sources, being cited for specific, not-too-technical claims. I'll ask for some third-party input on WP:VG, but I'm having trouble seeing this going any other way. Eik Corell (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Eik here. You need verifiable, reliable sources for content that's contentious or not self-evident. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Eik, per David. Nothing more to add, the removals are valid. -- ferret (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

From WP:VG thread, Agreed with Eik here, As mentioned we should not be relying on primary sources for contentious infomation we need verifiable, independent, reliable sources.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)