Jump to content

Talk:DotA Allstars/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Revisions

The main thing in the deletion was that a lot of stuff in the article is not citable. We can do history of DotA thing with the progression through spotlight map to the inclusion of it in Wc3 tournaments, those are all citable.

Also, I've never been a fan of the changes section since it does feel more like a game guide. Can we delete that section completely and just leave the information for the transition of architects?

I agree that the version histories aren't necessary. They should be removed. Instruction Manual type content is listed as What Wikipedia is not. I'm going to just go ahead and delete them. If I'm in the wrong, some Moderator can replace them. ;P Ong elvin
Okay, I edited the version history. Took out the version history changes, and only left the summaries of separate eras of version development. I think it looks better this way. =) Also, I think that the AI versions subsection should be moved into the Development subsection. It makes more sense there.Ong elvin

eventine 02:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC) 11:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)218.186.9.2 Hi I'm a regular player of the game and I added some useful information: -

Clan tda1 - tda3 at Azeroth are not official channels and are in fact malicious "fake clans" created against the official Clan TDA recently. The games there are not official. I hope this is okay as it's a cautionary warning. Secondly the peonban only applies to azeroth realm. I have also added the internationally recognized CAL/IHL link and mentions of the top dota clans in the world - I hope this will spark more interest in competitive play.

Just wondering if the peonban information is even relevant to the article? The section sounds like a guide to the culture of DotA. Ong elvin

(All these are cited in the official dota-allstars website - in fact CAL is on the loadscreen!)

Of more note is the information deleted: -

3rd party illegal programs that can be used to run the game without a valid CD-key is certainly against the rules and should not be mentioned, not even the existance of.

The WCG Asia DotA competition is not fully recognized (unlike CAL) in the official website, in fact, it is not even an official game in the WCG. Also, the quality of the participants do not reflect the standard of international play as a whole. I kept the WCG notes but removed the winning teams as it is rather irrelevant in such a small region's context.

Fansites that do not recognize the official site and forums should also be removed as their quality of information is suspect. The only resources that needs to be mentioned are the official websites and leagues.

Game modes

We need a section about all available game modes. --202.184.206.126 10:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  • i think a section on game modes is good, its part of the game, some people wont play other modes, and people who know nothing about dota may not quite understand what AR or AP or EM or any of that means. dota has its own surrounding culture, game mode lingo is an important part of understanding what dota is. Weevilmonkey 19:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Rather than having a section for game modes, it would be better to include some of the better abbreviations used in the game such as "GG" for Good Game, "WP" for Well Played, etc.
But aren't those common to all online games, not just DotA? I don't think either game modes or internet lingo would be useful here. --Habap 17:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Defense of the Ancients: Allstars → DotA Allstars – Rationale: Official name of modification is DotA Allstars, even though DotA is an abbreviation itself. DotA Allstars page is a redirect page with history. DeAceShooter 05:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 11:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I created this page since it was obvious that Allstars made up the majority of the information on the DotA page. What this means is that basically, we can be a LOT more detailed in the information we put about Allstars and hopefully this will be for the good of all people who visit wikipedia for Allstars information. What it also means is that there may be more targeted vandalism, so let's be vigilant and keep the page clean. Anyways, have fun and feel free to be a lot more creative with the page since it's all ours now! --Gatekreeper 08:02, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Who is this?

I need to know who this is with all of this information about the Blizzard contribution. TY.

nice job!

great job all! thanks to Gatekreeper and Rubberband for their participation in this page =)

Debroglie 10:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Merging

I'm upset that someone would want to merge the Allstars page back into the DotA page, since it took a lot of work to separate them in the first place. I have a feeling that whoever suggested it simply looked and thought, "Hmm, this page is based off of the same idea as this other page, so we should merge them." The DotA page was getting far too large, by wikipedia standards, and when we have such a dearth of information on something like Allstars, it's only proper that we give it its own page, rather than let it take up too much space on an already cramped wikipedia page.

--Gatekreeper 07:39, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

why is there so much detail about how to configure and play this game? I mean, does it really belong in Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not the place for a detailed instruction manual. I know y'all have spent a lot of time putting great detail into this, but there has to be a website better suited than our encyclopedia. --Habap 17:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

About Vandalism

As with the general DoTA page: Please do not edit, change or delete any part of the sections of the version of DotA that you do not like. Please only make contributions and do not name clans or users that do not make consistant balance changes and new features to the map. This is a form of vandalism and your ip address and isp are so conveniently provided by this site.

Please remember that Wikipedia is a place for objective discussion and information. As such, highly personal remarks on the game and irrelevant comparisons with other maps should generally be avoided. Vandalism wastes effort to revert, so it really is a unfufilling act for everyone. If you'd like to contribute more to this page, how about signing up too if you havent?

Ruberband 18:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The note

When I restructured the versions part of the page, since I thought 6.20 deserved it, I took out the note about the differences between the terrain types, since 6.20 once again changed terrain types to a more grassy terrain. Someone put the note back in, but left the new layout. Do we really need this note? Or perhaps we could extend this note somehow (for example, I would suggest making a NOTE: This version set uses icy/grassy/whatever terrain) after every one.) Or perhaps a brand new section specificly for telling the different versions apart?

--AlexMax 17:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Racism!

moneyshot - Often used term by Filipino or pinoy

Some may find this highly racist, first being the fact that how in the world do you know some one is Filipino. What relevance does it really have anyway!??!??!?? I USE THE INTERNET <END-RANDOM-COMMENT>

  • Thanks for taking notice. In the article, the sentence has now been edited to reflect a Neutral Point Of View. Debroglie 18:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm glad that it has been reworded to reflect a Neutral Point of View, too. Although, as an aside, I think that the reference to "Pinoy" gamers were added by some Pinoys themselves not for the purpose of racism but rather to gain immortality as a "creator" of a DotA term (the sariling atin Pinoy tendency). But, I agree... there's no relevance whatsoever. Gryphon Hall 16:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hero Allusions

While I was looking through this section, I noticed that the Ignis Fatuus, Shandelzare Silkwood and Juggernaut allusions are not the heroes but rather their skills. I was wondering whether we should create a new sub-section for skill allusions and replace these heroes into there instead.


imo the allusions mean little anyway. It's interesting to see where the map developers got hero ideas/skills from, but is rather irrevelant concerning DotA Allstars in general. But whatever, if you really feel like it.. 13urb 04:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

    • theres a lot of allusions in DotA, I think we should just call it a general allusions for names/skills rather than making it a separate subgroup for this --Tclphz 13:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

--Tclphz 14:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)== Misc ==

1) "setters"... that doesn't seem like a real group, to me. There's magnataur, and enigma for group. VS, pudge, and intel morph for a single hero. I suggest getting rid of it.

2) Can you guys make up your minds about the gold cost for random? It said 150 in game mode and 200 in commands. I set it to 200 for all right now to be consistent, but yeah.

3) Perhaps we could simply do away with the group stunners? Include it as a sub group for disablers, like I did with nukers and spammers.

4) Do we really need the actions "det", "zap", and "ult"? Techies and zeus players may ask their teammates to type a phrase to alert them to use their ultimate, but it's not really universal. If we include these, we might as well include "nuke" "stun" "hex" "sleep" "attack" etc.

    • IMHO, det/zap is useful cause it is used entire map-wise (i.e. affects all enemy players in a particular location in the game, even if its not near any friendly hero) 61.6.103.84 20:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

-- I've played DotA for a long time and I have never seen most these terms under Nouns and Actions used. I'm just wondering about the purpose of having some of these terms in the wikipedia is? ie: SS, its a skill, but there are a million other skills not listed here, like stuns and such

    • sy/my and country codes refer to Wc3 Banlist and not DotA.
    • OC -> never seen it, but it can happen whenever there is a stalled push and other wave of creeps catches up
    • farm -> just never seen this used before

Also some of the terms are repeat of each other, back+out refer to similar things; MIA + missing.

My main point is some of these terms are never used in the game. There seems to be no point or purpose in having them here, but I don't want to delete them or do anything before theres some other opinions. --

hey guys i think this article should be merged with "Defense of the Ancients" the link is given down under !!!!!!!!

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Defense_of_the_Ancients

--

An item allusion seems not so necessary counterintuitive: The stygian desolator one. There are severals versions of Achilles immortality. One comes from the styx dipping. Another comes from the ambrosia usage. The properties of the styx waters are not confirmed in all versions.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Styx_%28mythology%29

There is also the Tantale supplice associated to the Styx. Anyway, the allusion was probably true for AO, but 'dota' seems to have just imported the name without the associated allusion.

Esby 13:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Under "Download and Resources sites" there is a link to WBnet PvPGN Server, which is nothing more than a default webserver page.

Also is it worth adding Bored Aussie PvPGN server since there is a huge amount of DotA played there?

One should note that PvPGN servers are actually against Blizzard's Terms of Use, and therefore should not be added. Blizzard is against the use of GG-Client for the playing of WarCraft III games in a multi-player environment as a valid CD-Key is not needed for access to GG-Client. Bored Aussie and Eurobattle.net are also examples of such servers which do not need valid CD-Keys to be accessed. This means by publicising such servers, wikipedia is advocating the use of pirated software as such pirated software have CD-Keys which are unable to access Battle.Net. Wilsonho 11:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As soon as one guy add one of his links to the bottom (external links), the many of others begin to do the same. And the number of links is increasing, increasing and increasing.

I myself have done just the same.

Of course, sometime the links are deleted, but it's not ok also. Therefore, some good approach to these links should be invented. We can't just add them, and can't just delete.

Could one of us propose?? 193.190.238.4 15:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC) (creator of the most popular dota site in Russia)

A normal procedure would be to get consensus on which links to list and then delete any link not dicussed on the Talk page before it gets added. --Habap 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I think any link to "National Sites" is fine, unless they hide link to non-Blizzard realm or website full of hacks/cracks. Adding links to leagues or official websites without approbation in talk page is senseless and must be undo on sight. --DarthRahn 4:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

I think the terminology section is misleading in that it implies that acronyms/phrases like: "gg", "gj/gw", "noob" and "n1" are exclusive to DotA, while almost all of the phrases predate DotA, and are widely used outside of the game. It would improve the article if this was clarified. Ufretin 13:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to Leetspeak at the top of the section? --Habap 15:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

'Sources?'?

I'm going to remove the bizarre notice at the top of the page unless someone can point out any reason at all to have it there. All this info comes from either the game itself or the consensus among players here that the various jargon is universal in the DoTA world. --B. Phillips 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If none of this information is published elsewhere and it is only determined by consensus, then this qualifies as original research. The fact that many people contribute to it doesn't make it no longer original research. In order to appear in an encyclopedia, facts must be verifiable. These are the policies of Wikipedia. If this article is not an encyclopedic article and is instead a game guide, it's in the wrong place. So, the article either needs to come up to standards by getting sources, or have items removed, or it may face deletion from Wikipedia. --Habap 20:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, finding reliable sources for a lot of the information, especially in the jargon section, would be near impossible. Ufretin 08:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps most of the jargon should, instead, appear on someone's web page instead of here? --Habap 11:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

DoTA is an activity occuring every second of every day. --24.131.209.132 04:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information.Ufretin 07:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This information is verifiable because you can find most of it on the OFFICIAL dota webpage which is the source from the developer himself. -Iopq 20:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue is a guiding policy of wikipedia content, WP:V. That policy states "[i]f an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Now, this article isn't going to get deleted because people think that the article can be cleaned up. It's already been through one or two AfDs. It is important that we provide citations, otherwise the content fails WP:V and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I think that if people dig hard enough we can find sources to back up a lot of the statements in this article. Other statements which can't be verified need to go. What we'll get is a nice encyclopedic article w/o any of the game guide-esque elements. --JRavn talk 20:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Suggesting merge

I believe this article should be merged with "Defense of the Ancients." Although Defense of the Ancients is popular, it is still only a custom map, and does not warrant as many articles as it has.

This article is, at this point, almost nothing but a long list of vaguely described things and terms - alongside a few dictionary-style sections. A merge would allow many of these things to be removed without completely compromising the article's length and information. It also allow for the chronicling of the entire history of Defense of the Ancients to be in one place (the Defense of the Ancients article), as opposed to multiple articles as it is now. In addition, "DotA" maps are all fundamentally similar, and thus the gameplay would be easily describable if the articles were merged. JimmyBlackwing 12:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


No. This page is huge. And dota allstars is played by thousands of people EVERY DAY. There are several dota allstar games hosted at any time of the day on four Battle.net servers. This article has a huge amount of content and dota allstars is a very popular game. The same way teamfortress deserves a separate page from counterstrike dota allstars deserves a different page than dota classic. -Iopq 12:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The issue is that the Defense of the Ancients page is about about all versions of the game. The page doesn't exist to solely cover Defense of the Ancients: Classic. This article is a gigantic list, filled with information that only players of the game will understand - it's huge because it's overly wordy, and filled with inane details. For example, the current "version history" is something completely non-notable and unnecessary, but yet it fills up a large part of the article. The same goes for the Heroes and Allusions sections. As for the Terminology section, see WINAD - the majority of content in this section has no place on Wikipedia.
As most of this article's content is worthy of deletion, merging what salvagable parts left back into Defense of the Ancients is the best course of action. JimmyBlackwing 05:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

DotA Allstars was seperated from the main Defense of the Ancients page due to it having a lot more content in the first place. To comply with WINAD, suggest transWiki-ing the Terminology into a Dota Allstars Terminology wikibook? (just my 2 cents.) 130.194.13.105 06:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The history is uncomprehensive and should be merged into the parent article.

I would recommend merge because it sounds more like how to play the game, than infomation on the game itself which could be trimmed. -ScotchMB 02:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
well, i used to disagree, but it seems this article draws to much useless things, so i support just merging the important, encyclopediac parts into the main article. 1698 03:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I will merge the salvageable material into Defense of the Ancients, and nominate the remains of this page for deletion afterward. JimmyBlackwing 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


I believe that what is going on here is a lack of understanding of the differences between DotA and Dota Allstars. A good analogy would be "Pool" being a mother article, and 9-ball and 15 ball being subordinate articles. I believer that the page should be extensively rewritten, but not deleted. Hopquick 00:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations Needed

I see someone added a citations needed tag but there is no discussion for it. I'm not sure what needs citing. There is nothing controversial in the history, it's pretty simple and commonly accepted knowledge for anyone that plays the game. I'll remove the "most popular game" on bnet part, that is about all that needs to be changed. --JRavn 03:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A few items are marked, but the entire article is based on "commonly accepted knowledge" that is not verifiable. Since verifiability is critical to an encyclopedia, it seems that a lot of the article is original research that is not published anywhere else. In order to be considered a reliable source, we cannot have articles that are not based on something published by a reliable source. If there is information here that exists nowhere else (some editors have argued for the retention of the article for that very reason), we can't have it. If there is a Warcraft wiki somewhere (I know there is WoW wiki), it might be useful to move the article there. --Habap 14:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I know what you are saying, but a good chunk of wikipedia is not verified line for line. A good middle ground that is accepted for the majority of articles is that statements which are controversial, or challenged by people as untrue, need citations. "Common knowledge" or uncontroversial things don't necessarily need citations. It would be nice, but due to the difficulty of getting citations we live without them. --JRavn 18:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
After reading the article more closely and thinking about it, I've changed my position. I agree with you Habap. There are quite a lot of statements in this article which fail WP:V. For example, one such statement is "Although not the first map to have custom skills (that honor goes to the map Valley of Dissent), it was the first with custom skills to become widely popular." Since I've never heard of Valley of the Dissent, and there are no citations, I find myself unsure if this is true or not. There are other statements that could also use citations or be reworded. Let's try to get this article fully cited. If we can't cite certain things, they should be removed per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. --JRavn talk 20:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and see below. The section labelled Sources. --Habap 14:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the need for citations but there are many MANY things that are difficult to citate. There are many other articles involving games, websites, other stuff that have a difficult time finding citation but the information is mostly true. If you want to verify the changes in the history of DotA, that won't be too difficult;, if you want citations of allusions, we can make a wikipedia article on every one of those names. The guy down in sources also said that all this was available in the main websites (www.dota-allstars.com); however, i haven't been able to find the archives for older information, so I don't know what to do about that. eventine 14:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge

There doesn't seem to be a concensus on merging from the AfD, so I'm going to remove the merge notice. We should focus instead on improving the article's quality. --JRavn 03:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd perfer not to merge since realistically, theres only DotA Allstars still being played and its popularity is incredible. But being an internet game, it makes articles written about it difficult. I think we should remove the specific version by version changes and instead focus on large scale changes; .84b -> c -> 6.0 -> 6.3 etc (i can't remember the big changes anymore)
I also would like to see some history involving the increase in popularity with some citation (news about the inclusion in CAL league, spot light map, inclusion in Blizzard tourneys). eventine 13:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
There is already some of that stuff in the Current Player Trends section. If you want to rename it to something better go ahead. I also agree the version by version change history is not necessary. Go ahead and change em. --JRavn 16:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Merge, its the only way to make both articles look somewhat important.

Clan TDA section

There was a recent revert removing this section, with the description "non encyclopedic, this article is about the map, not one of many outside playing groups". I don't think this is a valid reason. Clan TDA is the official clan associated with DotA Allstars. In previous versions, the load screen even stated Clan TDA as the official channel for the map. If you look at the rules in the actual map (F9 I believe), the Clan TDA rules are listed. Icefrog, the creator of DotA Allstars in its current incarnation, is a chieftan of Clan TDA. Also, the channel and clan is notable, and are always filled to capacity with people looking for games. It is the de facto place to find organized Allstars matchups. I feel that for all these reasons, Clan TDA is worth mentioning, and it is not "one of many outside playing groups". I'm going to revert the edit. Let's discuss and reach a concensus before deleting again. --JRavn talk 19:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As a member of Clan TDA I do feel that it should be mentioned, though I would like to mention that there is no Clan TDA article at wikipedia and that if it was important enough to someone to not include it in the dota allstars article we could leave a link to a new article and move that section. 29 AUG '06 War-Mage

Well seeing as how DOTA is now rising up to higher league play (such as being accepted into CAL), I was hoping to add links to major league forums that I'm aware of such as TDA, IHL, and TDT. This would serve to help anyone who wants further strategy information since it can't really be included in this article. If anyone isn't opposed to it then I'll toss in the links sometime this week.Ironstove 17:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, just make sure they're fairly notable forum sites (10,000+ posts). There is already a link to dota-allstars.com so probably don't need to link the forum. --JRavn talk 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
already done. I've added TDT seeing as someone already added IHL. I edited the link names and fixed the IHL link so it wasn't [2] Ironstove 06:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding a more detailed changelog

I don't plan to actually add the changelog of EVERY version nor do I plan to actually submit a complete changelog, but I think generalizing the section "6.27b and above" is too broad and that area should be broken down into other sections as well so what I plan on doing is creation a section that looks like this:

6.27b

6.28-6.32

6.33-6.35

6.36 to present

basically I plan to seperate the maps based on when new heroes are added to the game and summarize any major map balances that were made within those gaps; so for example, I would move a majority of the .27b and above section into the 6.27b section and for 6.28 discuss the most major balances made and new heroes introduced. The same would occur for hero remakes and other such. If no one has a problem with this I can begin writing these sections up.

Wikipedia is really not the place for a detailed change log. --Habap 12:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

vandalism?

wow someone just removed a few of the external links i added in linking to unoffical Dota leagues... would anyone like to take credit? and i noticed some stupid argumentive lines being added to the 6.27b + section were it says "competition players creep deny hence the previous information is incorrect." i said league play POPULARIZED creep denying i never said that creep denying never exsisted before. and for what reason was the TDT link removed? i also noticed that the person that removed the IHL and TDT links which are both private dota communities added in their own section called DCE. this is really a dumb thing to do please refrain from removing information which others have provided in an attempt to put more focus on yours.

Claims that Guinsoo stole DotA

The lines claiming that guinsoo stole dota, specifically the comments of a particular author saying

"For instance, a number of Classic players resent Guinsoo for having 'stolen' their game, especially since he has similarly stolen most of his triggers, spells, heroes and items from other people; Guinsoo, for his part, maintains that the map was created from scratch and based only spiritually on Eul's work (Guinsoo has only admitted to taking the terrain and the idea for some heroes: everything else is his own, he claims)."

No refrence to the "Classic" players and their credibility. After that what follows the word "ESPECIALLY" are the authors own comments about stealing from all over the place, and not facts verified by anyone.

Nonetheless, no claims by euls are reported regarding stealing. Nor have any claims been reported by anyone else regarding stealing.

--Farqis 17:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

personally, i started playing dota around version 6.04 so i wasn't around to play the 5.85c versions very much... i mean as far as i can tell when it comes to the switch from 5.xx to 6.xx, the story really varies and is really shady so i can't rely on anything other than rumors, so i'd just stay out of this section unless or delete it alltogether if we aren't sure what exactly happened. Ironstove 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Actually, people de-protected Eul's and Guinsoon's maps and found that almost all of the triggers and layout were exactly the same. Thus Guinsoon did steal the map from Eul in a way. --HunterX2 17:45, 2 January 2007

Team heY

Team heY didn't win season 1 CAL, JMC did, and it didn't win season 2; coL did. Fix the vandalism please.

done. i changed the vandalism in the CAL section and also added in a bit more... i'm too lazy to update the strategy section and also i'm just getting too annoyed to do anything in some other areas like external links that are constantly being vandalized with bad reference sites >< Ironstove 21:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dota 6.42

We need to move the discussion about 6.42 onto the talk page. Revert wars are no way to edit a page. See the three revert rule, which is rapidly approaching. Here is an attempt of a synthesis of the discussion thusfar:

70.71.244.58 (from Talk page and edit summaries):

Acually, dota-allstars.com and getdota.com are no longer official. I know how things work around here, i'm an anon user, and I tell you something that you don't already know, so you assume its wrong. But your wrong this time. Talk to any of the guys from TDA people, dota-allstars and getdota have been taken over by anti-icefrogists who think hes taking the map in the wrong direction. My edit was RVed because of a split within the dota community. It is NO LONGER TRUE THAT GET-DOTA AND DOTA-ALLSTARS.COM ARE OFFICIAL. Please get your facts straight.

DarthRahn, a self-identified TDA member (from 70.71.244.58's talk page):

I see you promotes your website everywhere, even in Bnet but it is a wrong way.

DanSlotman (myself) (from 70.71.244.58's talk page):

You are right, I did assume you were editing maliciously, though not for quite the reasons you said. Can you get me any links? They don't need to be verified or anything like that, but I'm assuming forums.dota-allstars threads involving this would be deleted.
Understand where I'm coming from—I'm not assuming you are wrong, but you need to back your argument a bit better to show it isn't a hoax. Considering that the de facto official pages don't have any mention of this, this looks like an attempt to fork DotA. This is pretty much a tried-and-true tradition for the map (ref. Guinsoo), but you can understand the skepticism about leaving your contributions in the article.
Further, from a purely Machiavellian standpoint, control of dota-allstars.com gives those individuals control of Dota Allstars. If Icefrog disagrees with them enough to distribute via other channels, realistically he will likely have to 1) change the name or 2) suffer significant loss of "brand recognition." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dslotman (talk • contribs) 23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
And do not believe to everything in Battle.Net, look over this page on our stance regards 6.42. Also, user 70:71:244:58 is that your account?: xantan by DarthRahn 05:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Dota Allstars has an announcement about this:
Feb 15 2007, 03:52 AM IceFrog. Fake Maps. There are a few people that have been spreading fake maps. The 6.42 that is floating around the net is not even a leaked beta, it is a fake map with hacks. Official maps will always be posted first on getdota.com, if you don't find it there then don't download it. Dan Slotman 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:DotA_Allstars/Archive_1&oldid=1039603958"