Difference between revisions of "Talk:Opalescent Haze"
Kjfasimpaur (talk | contribs) |
Kjfasimpaur (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Authenticity== | ==Authenticity== | ||
| − | I personally believe that this domain is not related to the real Year Zero sites. Anyone have any further information to add? [[User:Kjfasimpaur|Kjfasimpaur]] 01:04, 15 February 2007 (CST) | + | I personally believe that this domain is not related to the real Year Zero sites. Anyone have any further information to add? (Apologies for earlier lack of sig; been awhile since I wikied.) [[User:Kjfasimpaur|Kjfasimpaur]] 01:04, 15 February 2007 (CST) |
:If [[Consolidated Mail Systems]] has it in a footnote, that's good enough for me. (Please try remember to sign your comments. It's just four "~" after your comment.) [[User:Heroicraptor|Heroicraptor]] 00:10, 15 February 2007 (CST) | :If [[Consolidated Mail Systems]] has it in a footnote, that's good enough for me. (Please try remember to sign your comments. It's just four "~" after your comment.) [[User:Heroicraptor|Heroicraptor]] 00:10, 15 February 2007 (CST) | ||
Just because it's registered somewhere else it doesn't mean it isn't related. It *is* mentioned on the [[Consolidated Mail Systems]], and one could reasonably assume it is a valid link since it came from a known website. However, I wouldn't put it in the "100% column" yet until we find definitive evidence either way, but neither would I say it is a definite fake. --[[User:Slyfingers|Slyfingers]] 00:31, 15 February 2007 (CST) | Just because it's registered somewhere else it doesn't mean it isn't related. It *is* mentioned on the [[Consolidated Mail Systems]], and one could reasonably assume it is a valid link since it came from a known website. However, I wouldn't put it in the "100% column" yet until we find definitive evidence either way, but neither would I say it is a definite fake. --[[User:Slyfingers|Slyfingers]] 00:31, 15 February 2007 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | My main concern is that the registration occurred *after* the footnote was outed in public forums. That makes it look like a squatter / gamejacker might have taken advantage. I'd assume that the real game runners have these things mapped out well in advance, to prevent surprises. I'm not 100% certain either, of course. Thanks for the feedback! [[User:Kjfasimpaur|Kjfasimpaur]] 01:11, 15 February 2007 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 07:11, 15 February 2007
Authenticity
I personally believe that this domain is not related to the real Year Zero sites. Anyone have any further information to add? (Apologies for earlier lack of sig; been awhile since I wikied.) Kjfasimpaur 01:04, 15 February 2007 (CST)
- If Consolidated Mail Systems has it in a footnote, that's good enough for me. (Please try remember to sign your comments. It's just four "~" after your comment.) Heroicraptor 00:10, 15 February 2007 (CST)
Just because it's registered somewhere else it doesn't mean it isn't related. It *is* mentioned on the Consolidated Mail Systems, and one could reasonably assume it is a valid link since it came from a known website. However, I wouldn't put it in the "100% column" yet until we find definitive evidence either way, but neither would I say it is a definite fake. --Slyfingers 00:31, 15 February 2007 (CST)
My main concern is that the registration occurred *after* the footnote was outed in public forums. That makes it look like a squatter / gamejacker might have taken advantage. I'd assume that the real game runners have these things mapped out well in advance, to prevent surprises. I'm not 100% certain either, of course. Thanks for the feedback! Kjfasimpaur 01:11, 15 February 2007 (CST)