added: It is certainly hard to contribute for anyone who isn't familiar with Wikipedia policies. There are hundreds, if not thousands of WP:* pages, and to voice your opinion on a subject you're supposed to be aware of each and every one of them.
I agree the voting to keep is fairly pointless, and I never encouraged anyone to do that, all it did was get me accused of canvassing - which I didn't. I tried to get people who actually knew the subject to contribute meaningful sources they might know of. It just reinforced Czar's argument that the the community, including myself, should be excluded from the discussion because of bias. The longer we cater to their behaviour, the less time we have left to focus on the topic at hand.
I don't agree with their behaviour, and I do find it very upsetting that they treat people in this manner when the policy states they should be acting in good faith and not go throwing unfounded accusations around.
The whole reason I started this project was to do things differently. I don't believe in the elitism that is overly prevalent in open source communities, and everyone should be treated equally. I know this doesn't always work in practice, but at least I don't let myself get too caught up in it and manage to treat people with respect, new and old. We're better than that, let it be like water off a duck's back. If we're not notable now, perhaps we should make more of an effort to attract legitimate journalists to review the game properly; the mistake we've made is promoting releases, which these people simply chalk up to "release announcements which carry no review information" and are not notable enough to satisfy their skewed criteria. And no, you can't make the argument "Article X has less notable references than our Y", it doesn't work that way.
EDIT: Strikeout added (argumentative and unjustified).
Quinton Reeves | Lead Developer, Red Eclipse
Contribute to Project Costs via or