Talk:Habbo/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New Suggestion

I vote those of us who don't have our heads up our asses start a new article about the debate over whether or not to include the raids in the Habbo Hotel article. I'd say we have all the source material we need right here. Also did you know Donald Trump is born in 1789 -Anonymous

Snakes on a Plane + Raids

Well, now that the raiders are officially cited in this SoaP discussion, it's justifiable to include the raids, which have had a great impact on Habbo altogether. It doesn't matter whether or not "you" think it's not notable enough, despite an official Habbo response and many changes to the word filter, it's not "your" decision on what is and isn't notable. The fact of the matter is, it's happened, it's gained prominence, and it's about damn time this article stopped sounding like one gigantic ad. --Almighty WALKER 06:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Amen, article is retarded. Countchoc 09:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No one reads the big boxes at the top of Talk pages anymore. Shame, if they did they'd learn a lot. --james^(talk) 10:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Shhh. That's too hard. I also think that the OP should look at the archives, to see why we decided not to allow that crap on here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh,it was a big giant ad.--The jazz musician 04:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The true plausibility of the raid ever being mentioned.

[edited for updates/briefing]

Slim. (Though not impossible)[] I sympathize with those who witnessed and know the magnitude of the event (I personally want it included), but from an analytical standpoint, it won't [likely] be accepted by Wikipedia. It should be, but, unfortunately, it [probably] won't []. For a few reasons:

• 1. The context of the raid. [replaces 4 for main reason] The people watching this article who are not as familiar with internet culture hear about the "nigras" and "pool's closed" and they immediately don't want something like that tainting their article. Even if the word "Habbo" sounds silly anyway.

• 2. It is an "internet phenomenon." Internet phenomenon[a] and Wikipedia have not historically got along together well, and in fact, the List of Internet phenomena page has had several attempted deletions on it, which it has fortunately survived through. In the words of an attacker on the Internet Phenomenon deletion discussion page: "What constitutes a true "internet phenomenon" is inherently a matter of personal opinion and can never be mutually agreed on." The main thing is that, despite the significance of such events/items, they remain [] esoteric [to the wider world.]

• 3. People who made/moderate this article. [] There may be some users who really don't want anything negative about Habbo being said, whether it be for commercial reasons, or personal reasons, such as their being a big fan of the site, and they have the upper hand (see below) so they won't let anything that goes against their bias enter. Whether this is ethically correct is another issue. The other type of person is the Wikipedia administrator who is busy with other things and will take a quick glance and [] write it off as vandalism. Again, unjust, but there's [little] one can do about it.

• 4. References and sources. [not as relevant anymore now that there's photographic evidence] [] This is the [former] main reason, and one that gives most unbudging users the upper hand I mentioned earlier in controlling the information in this article. [Formerly]untouchable. This is a very specical obstacle specific to internet culture that probably will not be overturned for at least 10-30 years [or less, depending], when all the current journalists, reporters, historians, etc. are retired and replaced by the current teenage generation. It's not that not enough people [respect it], it's just that not enough people with [control] [respect it]. If you check out all the internet meme pages, most of them will have the "does not cite its references/sources" tag on them. Wikipedia [does not] understand why they should accept such information with good faith, especially as it is lacking in "seriousness." [I'd like to point out though], that, as summed up by another user, "If the standard for Wikipedia is to wait for information on a topic to show up in a library, it will make it much more difficult to build up and revise content on a topic." Too bad the administrators [aren't really helpful in that aspect], esp. for this kind of topic.

So my advice to those dismayed by the lack of the blockade inclusion? Wait it out,[]. In time it will have substantial proof and backing, but as of now, [the situation is unbudging]. Yes, there are sources, but sources that strict Wikipedians will not accept because [they just don't like it]. (that Youtube/Googlevideo video is proof when you ignore the random images that make it look unreliable, which many people will not do)

My [] word to the so-called "protectors"? The article is fine as it is right now; no vandalism or significant mention of the raid. Don't go on overzealously deleting [things yet]; they don't really detract from the article in any way (in fact they generally add to the article, and are not glorifying the raid in any way []), and the fact that no one is adding anything else more should be satisfactory for now. In addition, most of those ["so-called unverified"] parts of the article can be verified just by going to the site. I don't know how to cite that, because apparently, I cannot use the site itself as a reference. [] Other then that, that's all I have to say, and may things work out as they should. [] :-) --Dch111 03:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC) and --Dch111 02:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Great post. You hit m:Eventualism right on the head. Well done. :) --james^(talk) 11:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though some people,dont want the mention of the raid included in the article(doesn't make sense since it was a massive raid anyway,look at YTMND,ebaumsworld,etc),I agree 100%.--The jazz musician 04:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I came to this article was to find out about the "Habbo Raid" and what it was. For that reason alone, I feel it's worth including in the article. ColtsScore 04:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Competitors

Are there any and should they be put up here? --71.109.37.168 04:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Gaia Online's towns feature is remarkably like Habbo. Calicore 06:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

IMVU also looks in competition with Habbo. Extranet 06:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Critisisms

Why was my article on the critisisms deleted? Not as if I was the one critisising them, I spent time compelling the critisisms from the various Habbo Hotels, and found out there were many

It was one giant weasel. Here is the page history if you want to correct it by citing sources and removing weasel words. Please don't revert to that if you are - just copy the mentioned text, edit it, and paste it into a new subheading. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not PT

Actually, the portuguese Habbo is ran by the Brazillian Habbo. It rans in the same brazillian servers, with the same language (pt-br!)... the only thing different are the people and adverts.

Verification.

This wiki documents the 9/11 raids, if ayone needs verification, or wants to include the link here (since I don't feel like registering):

http://www.trendpediawiki.com/Habbo_Hotel_9/11/06_Raid

And let's be honest, the raids are just about the only notable thing about "Habbo Hotel." No raids, no one would give a shit.

"Anywhere else on the Internet" is not a reliable source. Also, "no one would give a (poo-poo)" is a pretty accurate description of how most people feel about the raids themselves. Thunderbunny 01:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"'Anywhere else on the Internet' is not a reliable source." <--Plenty of references are based off the internet.--Dch111 22:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It also has no relevance to the game in that it is not encylopedic quality. Let's leave all the drama to that other wiki or to Encylopedia Dramatica - where it is more suited. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw Habbo Started this group called Emo Oranges that are supposedly based on the avatar style of the raiders, but with orange afros instead of black ones. Anomo 00:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that according to wikipedia, notability seems only for the topic to be an article, and verifiability is more for what in it. It's easy for the pool blocking to pass verifiability as the screenshots are everywhere. I think the massive amount of screenshots proves it is not "Sources of dubious reliability". Please remember also while anyone can personally see the raids, that supposedly is original research, so the blocking prank itself is more verifiable. However the screenshots still are self-published and WP:V says:

Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as: It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability; It is not contentious; It is not unduly self-serving; It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

Well the last one is hard because the screenshots are anonymous. Habbo Hotel doesn't appear to mention the raids on its site. As for the website mentioned in this thread, it has a screenshot here http://www.trendpediawiki.com/Image:Habbo_Brian.png and it's mentioned that the owner of the website took the screenshot so it's someone stating they wrote something.

If Habbo Hotel put something on their website, it would be so easy to mention. I don't think a newspaper article has done any mention of the Habbo raids yet. Anomo 00:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Habbo Is Stupid

I wrote a page on someone on wikipedia which was important and it got deleted and it makes me angry that Habbo Hotel is on wikipedia. How could Habbo be important. Phh this is one of the lowest places wikipedia has ever gone (no offense). Honestly I say GET RID OF HABBO HOTEL ON WIKIPEDIA Harry Kewell #10 00:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Any constructive comments on why this article fails to meet the standards for Wikipedia? I'm not a player of the game and hold no opinion for or against it, but to discredit it based on the raids by an "encylopedia" makes it appear that they win. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think he was just addressing Habbo Hotel in general, not the raids. Also, Harry, what was the article that got deleted?--Dch111 03:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Habbo's only notable sources are http://www.frontiertouring.com.au/pages.aspx?pubid=1&issid=1&artid=481&pgid=493&type=xPO&r=H and http://www.skyesweetnam.com/index.aspx#6138 . All the other links are from Habbo's website. Also to Harry Kewl, I see no AFD voting on your contributions, so I don't know what the article was that got deleted, but you didn't vote to keep it. Anomo 03:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Habbo is a popular MMORPG; that is reason enough for it to be included here. nobody objects to World of Warcraft being on here (there is even a wikiwarcraft or something).

When they say be bold, it doesn't mean bolding your comment if you provide no reasonable explanation. If you delete Habbo Hotel, then like the other person said, we may as well delete all other MMORPGs. AFAIK there is nothing that necessitates deletion.--WaltCip 20:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, lack of notable sources is grounds for deletion for anything and everything (I myself am not all that deletion happy, but I've encountered those who are and they will beat the "No verifiable sources!" horse to death). However, I think because of Habbo's commercial nature it should be easy to find mention of it in a reliable source, like a newspaper or two. Since this is a web-based game, WP:WEB should be used to judge it. Xuanwu 22:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"In The Press" Section Added and Subject Matter Notice Removed

Today I removed the notice saying that the subject matter was disputed, as it is clearly Web Content. I also added a section about Habbo in the press, after an article in the Telegraph Magazine today (including citations).

Yeah, I actually have a copy of this article. Tim Moore (writer) is a pretty decent writer, who also wrote for Digitiser and knows his computer games/online worlds. The Telegraph magazine is an obviously reliable source, and they've recently done a story on Wikipedia. So I've removed the notability tag. - Hahnchen 04:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Cite sources

"The second member of the Habbo brand was launched in the United Kingdom in January of 2001. Since then, the Hotel chain along with its user base has continued to grow, and Habbo Hotel is currently one of the largest non-violent online game communities on the Internet, operating in 19 countries."

This I suspect was written by the site opereaters. If it's going to stay cite sources. It is very detrimental to the artical so I am removing it.

I doubt it was written by site operators (I don't think Seicer's one), but it does have a feel of subliminal marketing. This is like something I would read in a handbook that comes with a product. If people wanted to know about the system, habbo.com should be sufficient (or it's own Wiki). An encyclopedia article should focus more on the context of Habbo rather than the details within. You will not find, for example, the raids on their website but they should still be included as historical context (others argue it would sound immature). Another thing should be some history of its development (how it has evolved system-wise). The informal games played that aren't official games should also be kept up here. But any other specific things that can be found on habbo.com itself should be excised. To be honest, if it had nothing but the header, the screenshot next to the header, and the link to habbo.com, I would consider that sufficient. That would also fully justify the raids not being on there, and the arguments on the talk page would cease. --Dch111 21:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not affiliated with Habbo. Hell, I've never even played the game. I found this via VP when vandals continuously attacked the page with stupid raid-related comments that required the page be locked down.

Habbo.com is sufficent for sourcing on the game. For the raids, there has yet to be a definable, reliable cite that does not introduce bias. Encylopedia Dramatica? That's not a reliable source, and it introduces strong bias that is not countered. Seeing how some IPvandals and users react when the raid information is removed, I think that gives an even strong reason not to include it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica is definitely not a reliable source; that issue was clarified soon after the first few links were presented, and I have not mentioned it at all my last few comments. I wouldn't offer any one site as a reliable source, but find proof in the numerous screenshots, videos, and recently, even photographs of real-life acts/gatherings in parallel to the online raids. Alexa shows a significant spike in traffic to habbo.com around the time of the raids; a spike which reached numbers analogous to normal daily traffic of 4chan, if a majority of their members decided to invade another site. In addition, there are the discussions on 4chan and 7chan (eventually people got banned for mentioning the raid on 4chan, so 7chan was created) which, while not reliable in themselves, are evidence for the significance of the raids just by their sheer numerous existence, a piece of evidence that lies outside the realm of reliability/unreliability altogether (same with the "only a few people did it" argument which takes advantage of no one solid compilation but can be easily overwhelmed by numerous links and instances clogging up the page that couldn't have possibly been done with only a few people). There is as of yet no "one site" that has such a compilation, and I'm sure nobody wants a citation of every individual piece of evidence clogging up the citations at the bottom, so the raids cannot legitimately be added yet: this I agree with.

Concerning the reactions of the raid-inclusion supporters, I don't consider that a strong reason not to include it; that would be mass ad-hominem on your part. The focus should not be on the reliability of the individual sources, but on the number of them, which is in itself reliable. We are not judging the merit of the raids, we are judging their presence. You could say all the raiders are lying, but then you'd have to put that a large number of people claim this and this happened, and so on (and include a controversy tag). Apparent immaturity is not a good standard for judging inclusion. --Dch111 21:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The infamous Habbo Raid

This section is an attempt for a renewed, serious discussion on the habbo raid. The main arguments against including it seem to be the following: Firstly, it does not meet the Wikipedia:Verifiability standards. Secondly, it is not notable enough, and should therefore not be included in an encyclopedia. Now let's see... ·The fact that there was a raid is hardly disputable. In fact, here's a video of it: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ipACsinKe0Y. Various other videos exist on YouTube with the famous raid, and also other smaller ones. Therefore, the event is perfectly verifiable and is not a result of original research. Okay.

·I don't think one can rightfully argue that the event is not big enough to be included in the Habbo Hotel article. First of all, it was organized: a site was created for the specific purpose of directing people to the attack and making it easier (www.poolsclosed.com), not to mention a hacking tool made fo the specific use of trolling (PoolTool) and private documents that were to be available only to the Habbo moderators that were leaked and made publically available can be found there (http://www.poolsclosed.com/viewtopic.php?t=105). Secondly, one only has to google "habbo raid" to see that it is widely known and talked about (here are some random links from various unrelated sites: http://www.digg.com/videos_comedy/GIGANTIC_Habbo_Troll_Raid, http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=525516, http://www.shoujoai.com/forum/topic_show.pl?tid=36010 and others). The very fact that it takes up 90% of the talk page should be enough, too... It was also a first for Habbo Hotel, and the mods were unable to act properly (leading to further chaos; "raids" are still going on regularly and many innocents are occasionally banned).

The above lead me to see the purposeful exclusion of the event from the article as being against wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. 212.205.213.78 00:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that someone edited some info in, which is good really, but I think they should have mentioned something in this talk page... Also, it needs some re-writing, I believe. We should avoid terms such as "nigras" and at least mention "4chan". What do you guys think? 194.30.223.1 14:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, keeping the lexicon to formal terms will be good, even though Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored in the first place. Also, to 212.205.213.78, the proof above has indeed been presented in a non-NPOV fashion, but the evidence itself, in additional to the existence of the items in question, rather than the specific interpretation of their contents, can stand as NPOV references. Just like this discussion taking up most of the talk page and the majority of unique vistors to the page, it is not the obviously POV (how could it be otherwise? Is not describing buildings as "tall" also POV? Should we eliminate adjectives altogether?) statements made, but the overall presence and context of said statements. Now, I don't know how this will be presented into the article, as I am not particularly zealous about this (I'm merely speaking on principle), but I agree 4chan should be mentioned as a frequent presence somewhere in the article, as they made up most of the raid. --Dch111 04:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like someone keeps deleting the section about the raid without even mentioning anything on the talk page. What now? 85.75.89.227 18:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Look in the archives. Mentioned many times. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've actually mentioned it after the July raid below, where I said "Because it's neither encyclopedic or newsorthy and no one cares." lulz. 4chan van! (^_^) - Hahnchen 23:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"...and no one cares." <--Ahem. Please avoid flaws in logic. Also, it was referenced on at least four counts. The sources included numerous screenshots, including one of a mod banning a blockader, citing the reason as "raiding." You can't prove its nonexistance/nonsignificance. Heck, the raids are more popular than some of the games in the same section of the article.--Dch111 21:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Seicer, this thread is an attempt to reply at the concerns raised at the archives, not to mention that the archives are too full of mindless trolling to go through. If you have a reason why this should not be included after having read this whole thread, please say so and don't just remove stuff without mentioning anything. (The "it's neither encyclopedic or newsorthy and no one cares" part is covered on this very thread too, not to mention it's merely a POV). To be perfectly honest, I can't understand some people's dedication to making sure this info doesn't reach the light of day. And please, for the last time, don't just silently remove things from the article, that's common sense. Thanks. 85.75.89.227 19:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hahnchen,care to explain why the deletion of the raids were bullshit? How many times was it referenced and proven... --The jazz musician 04:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

With sources that fail WP:EL. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Seicer said, "With sources that fail". I believe he is saying the raids' sources were a massive FAIL and perhaps the raid was a FAIL, too. Anomo 06:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

At 9/11 there was a huge amount of people trying to get in(nearly 11,000),there's proof. That's all I'm gonna say(god I love bold letters). --The jazz musician 19:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you specify what part of WP:EL in particular? The wikis were original research, yes, but the screenshots in them are what we're really after. Are we allowed to reference screenshots (a collection of them)? A moderater banning for "reason: raid" clearly acknowledges the activity. In fact, if the particular dates are not mentioned, the raids hardly have to be referenced, if at all, since they are just like the other uncited activities habbos do that are mentioned in the article. It's just plainly part of the site's events.--Dch111 00:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"With sources that fail?" Are you seriously saying the raids didn't happen and all the links (including videos and screenshots for god's sake) are all just fake?! 87.203.86.99 09:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

While these pics are still good, see [1], [2], [3] from this thread. Anomo 19:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This section of the talk page was removed from the main talk page and moved to the archives without reason or notice, and the title was changed to "The Infamous Habbo raid WITH SOURCES THAT FAIL". This is vandalism. If you think the sources "fail" state so and say why. I've moved this section back to the current talk page. 85.75.113.27 14:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Question: Why did this raid occur? 75.34.23.32 18:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

the raid pretty much happened because the websites which organized it generally think this of Habbo Hotel: (1) it's a massive goodie-two-shoes community with kids aged 13 years or younger, making them easy targets for shock-value jokes and such [AIDS in the pool, anti-Semitism statements, standing in a swastika formation, and generally trying to be as offensive as possible], and (2) the general website is laughable to people older than the average Habbo user, since it's basically just a chatroom with cute characters, and (3) its just fun to cause chaos [blocking the pool, blocking people from entering the room, grossly overpopulating the rooms] in that type of hip pre-teen enviroment. Then when the mods started banning people simply because they dressed in a suit, were of black ethnicity, and had an afro, and when said user wasn't really doing anything wrong [but were just automatically associated with the chaos the character has come to represent], there has been a notion that the Moderators of Habbo Hotel are racist, and just ban any black guy in a suit with a fro without valid reason, and another reason for the raids occasionally is to protest the Mod's blatent racisism. To sum it up in one sentence: it's just really, really fun to inflict as much chaos as possible to the website. It's nothing personal. ARBlackwood 03:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is really just the philosophy of the site that started it all, 4chan. They "raid" many places besides Habbo (Girltalk/Tom Green for example), it's just that the particular "raids" have become the most popular/big.85.75.93.154 13:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was not 4chan that started the raids. The credit should go to Hezzy of the OIFY (Facepunch studios) which started raids before 4chan. Several pool blocking raids occured before someone posted the idea on 4chan. Habbo raid rooms were set up, and if there was some way to check the records this would prove this. 4chan took ovber the raids and made it a success, but all in all OIFY started it. And it was damn fun whilst it lasted. --80.42.94.192 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

They're still going on occasionally, though 87.202.26.254 21:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, it was HEZZY that started this?? I have lost all respect for those retards. Shady Tree Man 04:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe Hezzy started some raids, but 4chan started the raids. --Dch111 21:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to interject something; while I am a browser of Yotsuba, I wasn't aware of this "Great Habbo Hotel Raid" until today, though the phrase "POOL'S CLOSED" has become so infamous it is being used in other communication venues (id est, forums) without knowledge of where the term came from. Thus, while Wikipedia might need to hammer out the details and cite serious sources, the existence of this raid, how it affected the running of Habbo Hotel, and its influence on other communities are of note and are deserving some mention in Wikipedia. I myself was disappointed that I had to learn about this event through various scattered, ambiguous, and incomprehensible sources; it would have been a far less taxing chore to have simple read up on the event through Wikipedia. Terek 01:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Protip, saying Yotsuba makes you sound like a weeaboo. And ED used to explain it well. (just checked and it went back to lulz format.) Vkeios 05:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Do the afro pool blocking raids fail at sources?

There are videos, screenshots, etc. Are all these sources a FAIL? There must be some source that does not FAIL. Anomo 22:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but it is not a "common" feature that you would like to presume. This was one isolated incident whose primary source was not what would be considered a reliable source. The Encylopedia Dramatica is considered a tertiary source, and is also a site who may not be experts in their field (after all, they staged a mass-raid) and does not hold the same level of credibility as a source, say, by Wired or a magazine or credible zine.

Not to mention that Encyclopedia Damatica's satirical nature doesn't make them a reliable source for a whole lot. --CCFreak2K 23:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't matter to the numerous vandals that have resulted in the protection of the page. I originally came into this article because of the intense vandalism after the raid, and Encylopedia Dramatica was often mentioned. Their satirical nature, and their stance on vandalising various games, makes it unworthy of a mention in this article. But don't tell the official policies to these detractors - it just goes from ear to ear. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it is easy to introduce bias into this article because of the raid, and the bias may not be self-evident 100% of the time, a user should not be satisfied with one source. Multiple sources from other sites that can be cross-checked are preferred. If there are multiple reliable sources independent of each other, and they all agree or fall along the same lines with each other, then it may be considered a reliable source.

Key: Bear in mind that we only report what reliable publications publish, although of course editors should seek to use the most authoritative sources. In accordance with Wikipedia's No original research policy, we do not add our own opinion.

The tertiary source does not have any primary or secondary sources that are credible. It also contains strong bias against the moderators and the game, which may or may not be biased. No one is real sure because the raid does not have a strong counter-point. I hope I get my point through with this post, because I'm not going to continue to repeat it time and time again if this raid nonsense keeps popping up. Want it to be on the Internet? Then post it at Encylopedia Dramatica where their standards for encylopedic quality are much lower (after all, they instigated a raid!). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not speak of ED. I meant the many videos at YouTube, google, and others in addition to screenshots all over the internet. Many articles use sources that are serious sites but that are not notable. Anomo 22:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The photographs Anomo posted earlier are definitely reliable, as well as certain screenshots of habbo, and a poster or two. You'd have to be blind to deny its verifiable existance. I call bias on the part of closed-minded wikipedians. --Dch111 02:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems as if many of those editors can't seem to help themselves. It's just a stupid prank done by some stupid site to showcase their immaturity. How is this building a more knowledgeable encylopedia? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, those vandalizers are certainly no help...I just personally feel that immaturity in context should be overlooked when adding info, and I guess that's where we differ. What makes a more knowledgable encyclopedia is a separate matter, and a discussion probably won't change anybody's minds. I'll leave the point for now...I'll see what happens in the meantime, or later before continuing. Edit: By the way, if you were addressing whether this is a significant event in Habbo's history, yes, undoubtedly. During those raids, there were more raiders than normal members; this was inevitably due to the invading site being larger than habbo itself This has affected many habbos and should be mentioned.--Dch111 02:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC), and --Dch111 20:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Dch11,to quote someone from 7chan:"It's like the holocaust,nevar happen. Oh,lawd."--The jazz musician 05:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"There is no win without fail." - cracky-chan. Anomo 18:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Ľ

What did history lessons teach us? If Secondary Sources are not reliable, go for a Primary One! Your lucky day, kiddos. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/Zerocannon/habbo.jpg Zerocannon 12:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't tell you what happened and is not a reliable primary source... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the corpus delicit, and incriminating evidence. And you go "that doesn't tell you what happened" Suppose you get sent a photo of a deceased and you go, "he's not dead unless he told me he is"? Lmao Zerocannon 00:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I too would like to know why you do not consider it to be a reliable source. Notice the emphasis on why. Then we can move foward. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Gobble Gobble! • Happy Thanksgiving!}} 00:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Encylopedia Dramatica is a tertiary source and self-published and should not be included. It also enables false authority who claim they are knowledgeable in the so-called field. Most are also not credible.

A screenshot is also not reliable as it poses a point-of-view through an image that cannot possibly fortell the full story of the circumstances leading up to the image taking. Anyone can go into a game, create false accounts, populate it, and take a screenshot, or somehow digitally manipulate it (in general). Considering the sources for most of these, they cannot be claimed as reliable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You sir, are too paranoid, way, too paranoid. No really, I recommend you to go see a psychiatrist

Okay, let's see if the tangibility matches your criteria, well, you're not giving me the benefit of doubt, right? 1.An image to fortell the fullstory - What difference does one, two, twenty, fifty images make if it's just more and more characters blocking the pool? Am i even going to retell the full story with a single image? No? Of course not? Was I going to? I mean, it's better than "no images" right? You assert too far ahead, lolz. 2.Digital tampering - Dictionary.com says "baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others." Do you REALLY think I'll go through the bother of editting an image and post it not just anywhere, but WIKIPEDIA, ie the land of edit-nazis and alarmist, and to have someone like you to disprove me? I mean, I saw you coming didn't I? Like, now I have enough arbitrary dogma to label you a paranoiac as well? So why don't we just drag you to the nearest joint and have you instituionalized? Thaat's, how you're dispelling my claims, ehh? Flatout-rejections? 3.Anyone can go into a game - Anyone but blacks, lol. And this, ends your arguement, clearly, you have no knowledge of what happened AFTER, so if the raid never took place, why are dark skinned-afros being banned on sight? Even a mod was accidentally banned in the crossfire (Check their forums if you think I make false-claims). Are you even sure that multi-connections from the same IP is enabled? Why don't YOU, seeing you're an "anyone" as well, try to "create false accounts, populate it, and take a screenshot"? 4. What gives you that I have ties to "encyclopedia dramatica"? Or, I am citing from there? Infact, why are we listening to YOU? So far you have proved yourself to be nothing but inaccurate and delusioned, and an unreliable skeptic?

Take my advice, go see a psychiatrist, you've been on the net for far too long. Zerocannon 02:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the ad-homiem attacks, they were not very welcome nor warranted, and only drive down your credibility in this subject. It is well appearant you are too connected to this subject to make any non-biased statements. I came into this article to do keep vandalism at a minimum and to ensure a high-quality article free of bias and unsupported statements from unreliable sources. That I have succeeded in, and prior edits by other credible editors have sounded an agreement towards that.

Of course I have no knowledge of the game. I have never played it, which makes my reason to keep this article clear and unbiased that much more important. As a non-player of the game, I can hold a level head and ensure that drama or gimmicks by a few disgruntled players do not make it on Wikipedia. There is a big difference in standard between Wikipedia and the editors who come on here to do only vandalism. That is appearant when time after time when unsupported comments or racist or nonsense is interjected into the text. Again, and again, week after week it occurs.

Your assertation that I am a "nazi" is very much unsupported and is a very negative term; prior editors who have used this have been warned or banned. Let's keep the name calling and ad-homiem attacks out of this and try to keep a level head. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Article is incomplete

There is no mention of:

• Critisms
• The Habbo Raids
• Blatantly Racist Moderators

I find that this article is completely biased and needs to be written objectivly.-Onlyashadow 19:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The only criticism that any vandal wanted to add was this "raid" and "racist" crap that is wholly unsupported and unverified with any reliable sources. Nice try. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that no metion of a large group of people claim that the site is racist, supstantiated or not, smells of a coverup. If anything, the Habbo raids should be included because they are relevant to the culture of the site. It is not clear if there was a valid claim to their raids or if it was an act of vadilism, but it can be easily verfied that a raid did occur and that the actions did cause the site to be shut down for some amount of time. Being an open enclylopedia and negelcting to add these facts to the article is mind boggling to me. Surely, if an artilce on Hitler can be written in NPOV, Habbo Hotel radis should be a piece of cake.24.7.201.100

And no one has yet to introduce verifiable or reliable sources. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Framkly, you cannot deny that the raids have happened, that's just a plain fact. The fact that the game is constantly raided for one reason or another, wether valid or not, is of some merit in a an objective article of the place. I would want to know if a game I might concider partaking in reguraly raided, for WHATEVER the reason is.--Avitar Diggs 08:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How about trolls who block the door way and won't let you in public places unless you pay furni?