Charas Wikipedia Discussion

[Daetyrnis]

I was one of the people here when Raffles first came.  The time when Charas first had to use the ban option.  Wait, was Kairou banned first?  Anyways, the whole matter made me laugh.  Raffles is just one of those people with nothing better to do than to be an asshole on the internet to feel big.  They just look ridiculous in my opinion.

[MrMister]

Originally posted by Daetyrnis
I was one of the people here when Raffles first came.  The time when Charas first had to use the ban option.  Wait, was Kairou banned first?  Anyways, the whole matter made me laugh.  Raffles is just one of those people with nothing better to do than to be an asshole on the internet to feel big.  They just look ridiculous in my opinion.

wait.. how did RRWP end?

[Moosetroop11]

And pop was banned far before Raffles. As far as I know.

[Osmose]

I, er, wahba was banned before him too. He certainly isn't the first to be banned.

[Daetyrnis]

Okay call me crazy.  I was mixing up pop and raffles there for a second.

I don't remember wahba though, who were they?

[Razor]

Originally posted by MrMister

quote:

Originally posted by Daetyrnis I was one of the people here when Raffles first came.  The time when Charas first had to use the ban option.  Wait, was Kairou banned first?  Anyways, the whole matter made me laugh.  Raffles is just one of those people with nothing better to do than to be an asshole on the internet to feel big.  They just look ridiculous in my opinion.

wait.. how did RRWP end?

He left and chose not to come back ever.

He did pop in once, though.


Wahba was a MASS spam attack that resulted in the rule of "one post per minute rule". I think the less said the better.

[Grandy]

Originally posted by Razor

quote:

Originally posted by MrMister quote: Originally posted by Daetyrnis I was one of the people here when Raffles first came.  The time when Charas first had to use the ban option.  Wait, was Kairou banned first?  Anyways, the whole matter made me laugh.  Raffles is just one of those people with nothing better to do than to be an asshole on the internet to feel big.  They just look ridiculous in my opinion. wait.. how did RRWP end?

He left and chose not to come back ever.

He did pop in once, though.


Wahba was a MASS spam attack that resulted in the rule of "one post per minute rule". I think the less said the better.

 "Wahba" is a username?

[Tomi]

Yes.

I remember pretty much all of those..

[MrMister]

Wahba was in.. August 2004.
Lord Raffles was December 2004.
*solve'd*

[Kinslayer]

I hadn't seen this. Another looser trying to be a pain? They all should realize they're worthless, and there is no diference in the world if they live or die. Good thing it's solved fast.

[Osmose]

Wahba wasn't a loser! He was a very intelligent person who found that the only way to get his point across at that time was to work by example.

He left the forums much safer than they were before. Wahba was, quite possibly, one of the most awesome members of all time.

[Emerates]

So that was the semi-legendary Raffles....





















Lol.  For shame, man.

[Razor]

In what most would dub an ironic twist, unless someone does something soon, there WILL be no Charas wiki, thanks to the wikifags who suck balls.
YES, I am addressing YOU, Mr Mark our article for deletion.

[Osmose]

Well all anyone needs to do to try and save it is remove the notice and provide a legitimate reason on the talk page. The hard part here is that we don't have any legitimate reason to be on Wikipedia.

There are, at most, two or three notable contributors to the article. At least one of them is a mod here (me). We do not have any references from news or magazine articles. Because of that, we don't pass the notability test.

Wikipedia isn't just a depository of information, it's an encyclopedia. As such, anything that has a page on it must have some proof of being notable enough to deserve one - Wikipedia can't have an article for every website.

You can't prove a website's legitimacy through number of members or google hits - both of these are original research (research that doesn't use verifiable outside sources) and both can be faked quite easily by anyone who cares.

If you find any magazine or newspaper, even a small publication, that has a linkback to us, or find an article in a major website(digg.com doesn't count because anyone can submit stuff there), you're welcome to remove the mark for deletion and show your proof of notability on the talk page. Otherwise, I strongly recommend against removing it just to save the page. It makes our whole site look bad.

This had always been a possible problem - before we just skated by on the fact that no one read the article besides us. Anyone who normally edits Wikipedia would've marked it for deletion a long time ago. (GamingW's article slid by on a no consensus vote, and if it comes to it, I might propose a vote to see what happens.)

[Razor]

Then I probably shouldn't have taken matters into my own hands and removed it myself.