the rest of the
wikipedia talk page is exasperating
the user Ckoerner has done the majority of edits on the page, and admits to being a resetera member, and knows how to play the wikipedia game to dodge all criticisms
how is it ok to promote the website like this as an era user?
"I do have an account on ResetEra and engage in the community there recreationally. I have no horse in the race and am not receiving any compensation for working on this article. Valid suggestions to improve the article are welcome."
everyone can plainly see how era is a cesspool roundly made fun of across the web, their antics are well known, they've helped drive people to suicide, danced on graves, are currently anti-science regarding gun violence, why can none of this be included in the article?
"To include these claims in an encyclopedia article we'd need to have reliable sources writing about them. We could then include them in a neutral way. That's how this works. Not anyone coming to a talk page making claims about a thing or person without any way to verify. If we didn't have these rules, then Wikipedia would be untrustworthy and biased"
and it just so happens that no "trustworthy source" has ever written anything bad about resetera! imagine that
and you can't include things posted on the forum itself because then you're using a thing to cite itself
so I guess fucking factual information that is plainly obvious and easy to find has no place in an encyclopedia
but see, normally you would think if you can't find any reliable sources even talking about something, it wouldn't meet standards for notability