The article is about Spellbinder Games. If one of the owners of the company says "We visited the moon last week," that quote, no matter how ridiculous, can be in the article, whether you believe the quote or not. It doesn't have to be factual at all -- if a Spellbinder employee said it, then it can go in the article as a quote. A disbeliever can then add wording about this "claim" being "unverifiable", and it can be called an "alleged" trip to the moon. Thats a neutral tone, containing both sides of the issue. Thats all we are asking. Why is this so hard for some people? Shamara 02:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Having posted a referenced entry, which nonetheless repeats Randy Richards claims regarding Spellbinder Games as such, I have to wonder why Shamara attempted to remove it and replace it with a citation-free article that states Mr. Richards' claims as fact.Marshal M 17:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me put it this way, if you are going to post "We visted the Moon last week" on a reference source web site most of us at least expect you to add a link to prove that fact or to offer at least some kind of evidence. Very little is on display here. Anything honest would do. If you don't you should expect the web page to be challenged, your reputation to be mocked and maybe the site removed by the site owners.
The Wiki concept is about verifiable fact. What Randy says or claims is not fact. By creating cross checks with factual, supporting information we can see his statements are true. Just making statements does not make it true and proving the negative is impossible if the “fact” is not true or real. Take Spellbinder Games. It has no record anywhere before Randy himself announces its existence. As it serves to provide Randy a source of validation against the event at NG then we have to look at it. How is it the NG is rock solid and Spellbinder is not. There is no evidence anywhere from an independent, verifiable source that shows the existence of Spellbinder separate from Randy. This is the problem. The goal is not to then prove that Randy is wrong, it’s to prove him right. As an independent source I can’t do this, I honestly tried. Too many of his issues are like this. Take my review, same issue, now he claims I am Terri and in some way incapable of writing a review because of it. If I am Terri or not is not the point, if I can be subjective is. But again, the Terri person serves a purpose for Randy and again does not exist as a separate entity by herself, she only exists because Randy says she does and this claim again requires verification from a defined, verifiable source. This is why it’s so hard for me. Ken Quode 03:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)