Jump to content

Talk:Aeria Games

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

COI

[edit]

Jeirhart is a Turf Battles GameSage.[1] SSF (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A GameSage is a volunteer position and the Turf Battles page was written by myself before I was elected to be a volunteer. I receive no compensation for my work and strive to keep the page up to the standards of a good wikipedia page. If anyone believes something on this page is undue advertising or does not fit in Wiki's standards, please point out the issue and it will be changed. I ask that before you do this, you compare this page to that of other MMO's such as World of Warcraft which I have used as a base for this article and is written in much the same fashion.Jeirhart (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBB?

[edit]

While I understand why there can be a lot of frustration with a company that collects real money for virtual goods, is it really pertinent to list their BBB rating on the page? I'm not aware of other pages that have it. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? --170.28.221.3 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


As a matter of fact, I came to Wiki to find out if this company was reputable or sleazy, and found no relevant info in the article either way. I would have very much appreciated any substantive, credible information in either direction.209.193.52.33 (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion vs Vandalism

[edit]

Please do not vandalize this page:

Obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding cruel or offensive language. Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. Administrators should block persistent vandals and protect pages subject to vandalism from many users, rather than repeatedly reverting. However, non-administrators may have to revert vandalism repeatedly before administrators can respond. SupermanX (talk) 5:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Please cease reverting my talk page entries. While the article has been subject to vandalism, please remember that talk pages are not articles. Their purpose is for discussing how best to improve articles. Evidence of AGE's dishonest business practices [citation needed] is, I believe, relevant to this talk page.
Editing, deleting or reverting another user's talk page contributions, under the assertion they are vandalism, is bad form.
"Any well-intentioned user" would probably agree that, as a paid representative of AGE (and the sender of the aforementioned email), your contributions to this article and its talk page are likely to be biased.

Socialistscum (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have already requested that an administrator look at these posts, and to revert anything done inappropriately. I have already quoted the section on vandalism, and if you had bothered to check, you would also see this:

Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption

It is clear that you are not discussing the topic on hand, nor are you making any consideration to present facts. If you had any intention to present facts, you would stop posting other peoples personal information, and instead reference the public post on this.

However, this is is NOT an article, and even as such, not the place for such postings, and as such you should follow these rules as well:

  1. No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means:
   * No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it.
   * Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you. Explaining to an editor the consequences of violating Wikipedia policies, like being blocked for vandalism, is permitted however.
   * Do not make legal threats: Threatening a lawsuit is highly disruptive to Wikipedia, for reasons given at the linked page.
   * Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely.

SupermanX (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I repeat: please cease editing my contributions. I welcome an administrator to do so; not you.
I didn't resort to insults, nor did I make any libelous or poorly sourced claims. Nor did I make any legal threats.
I didn't provide any personal details such as names (that weren't already publicly available), addresses or phone numbers. Socialistscum (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I will yet again quote the rules:

Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.

  • Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely.

I have removed personal details multiple times, and you are consistently trying to use the talk page to express your personal views. Please try to follow the rules.

SupermanX (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


If you consider Aeria Games and Entertainment notable enough to warrant an entry on Wikipedia, then as its community manager, you are notable enough to be mentioned in the context of your job. Please remember that these are not AGE's forums; you do not have the power to censor those who do not share your views. I will continue to do you the courtesy of allowing you to express your ideas. Until instructed otherwise by an administrator, I will continue to reverse any changes you make to my entries, however. Socialistscum (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your implication that I am using the talk page to air my personal views, I would point out that at least one of your recent edits to the main article has been less than constructive. Many articles about companies or other entities feature a criticism section. Evidence of dishonest business practices (people affiliated with a given company are not to provide feedback for that company on the BBB's website due to the obvious conflict of interest) are of interest to existing and potential customers and relevant to the article. It is not soapboxing to provide such evidence. Socialistscum (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I will again refer you to the guidelines for wikipedia:

Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.

If you have content to add to the article, you can do so. The talk pages are not for you to present information, nor are they for you to give your opinion of anything except the article. You can take these rules up with Wikipedia, which as you can clearly see is not associated with Aeria Games in any way... yet makes these rules. You dont have to like these rules, but you should at least attempt to follow them.

Just as a reminder, I have yet again removed personal references from your posts. Please refrain from personal attacks, and if you have valid information for the article, you an post it there... not here. As such, I will remove my references as well, in good faith.

17:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

STOP!!. Please stop this right now. It is inappropriate to to post email addresses anywhere on Wikipedia. It is also inappropriate to completely remove other's posts. It would be appropriate to redact email addresses. If this carries on, i will report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, which will probably result in both of you being blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate impartial intervention. I have obscured the email addresses as advised. Do you consider this acceptable? Socialistscum (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank Jezhotwells for helping in this matter. I was unsure of how to deal with this directly, and asked for assistance. I respect their judgment as a neutral party, and thank them for expressing this in a manner that I was not able to get across. SupermanX (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBB Section removed, as it no longer seems a current issue, and had non related vandalism. SupermanX (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Why removed the BBB Section ? I lost 3000 US dollars playing Shaiya. Its crazy, the game sage and their mods are crazy !!! Oh my goodness, why don't you go take a poll on how many people pay how much money into this games.. ? Its a fraudulent company ....geeshhh...

Viewers has the right to know !!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.221.197.57 (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the absence of a quotable, certified article mentioning illegal or dubious actions from Aeria, it remains a person's opinion. Following WP's rules, it cannot be included at this point. I guess a possibility would be to mention how Aeria uses viral offers to get more users, but it has to remain neutral... And is it any worse than what Zynga (for example) does? Chealar (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constant insertion of "Complaints" section

[edit]

While I have no issues with well-sourced information of any kind being included in an article, the complaints section that IPs are edit-warring over recently is entirely inappropriate. It has no sources, it's loaded with weasel words, and it's entirely POV. I've requested semi-protection of the article to help cut down on the revert-warring; once that's in place (hopefully) it would be nice if the IPs would present their well-documented sources regarding these complaints for possible inclusion. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These complaints appear to be re-appearing under an attempt at neutrality entitled "Terms of Service/Controversies." However, it continues to rely on the generalized "several people" who allegedly take issue with the company's ToS, which the author himself then turns around and calls comparable to the industry standard. The only citations made are to Aeria's ToS and Blizzard's (for comparison), with no references to those "many" who are critical. The controversies section, further, contains untrue inferences, claiming Aeria has offered rewards in exchange for favorable BBB reviews. Even the author's own reference contradicts this claim. ZachAnd (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a section on complaints or ToS or anything, please make sure that there are independent secondary reliable sources that verify the information. It is not acceptable for a paragraph to make an assertion with the only reference being to a primary source (e.g. an actual ToS statement) because that is original research since it needs to be interpreted (is it different from comparable statements?), and there are no complaints mentioned in the statement. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Why is this company so bad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.102.19.71 (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aeria-developed games

[edit]

Is there any reference to substantiate the claim that “Aeria Games does not develop any games directly”? I can't find a reference to prove that it does either, but I do know people (in person — I live in Berlin) who work there as game developers. There are job openings for game developers in their careers page, and the website for Dawn of Gods for example seems to indicate it's developed by Aeria.

For now I will leave the page with just don't claiming either way; if anyone can find a reliable reference, feel free to add the corresponding text. Lalo Martins (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aeria Games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aeria_Games&oldid=1204558592"