Jump to content

Talk:Gabe Newell: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
assessed as C
Line 54: Line 54:
*{{reply to|Rklahn}} My changes were done due to the degree of uncertainty (a range of 20% goes beyond reasonable margin of error), but if you believe my edit also implied less doubt then fair enough. Would a simple "roughly half of the market" be an improvement over both? ~ [[User:Dissident93|<b style="color: #660000;">''Dissident93''</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dissident93|<b style="color: #D18719;">''talk''</b>]])</sup> 14:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
*{{reply to|Rklahn}} My changes were done due to the degree of uncertainty (a range of 20% goes beyond reasonable margin of error), but if you believe my edit also implied less doubt then fair enough. Would a simple "roughly half of the market" be an improvement over both? ~ [[User:Dissident93|<b style="color: #660000;">''Dissident93''</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dissident93|<b style="color: #D18719;">''talk''</b>]])</sup> 14:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
::I agree with the idea that a 20% range is beyond reasonable. That's actually what I think needs to be preserved here. When "half to 70%" is said, the reader is able to question it, and because of [[WP:V|verifiability]] the reader can find it, see it is the same in the source, and give the passage it's [[WP:WEIGHT|due weight]]. "more that half" gives the source more credence than it should have. There are probably other ways to say this, and maybe other sources that give better data, and we can talk about that. That being said, I think the original stands out as the best at this point. cc: {{reply to|Dissident93|IceWelder}} [[User:Rklahn|Rklahn]] ([[User talk:Rklahn|talk]]) 17:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
::I agree with the idea that a 20% range is beyond reasonable. That's actually what I think needs to be preserved here. When "half to 70%" is said, the reader is able to question it, and because of [[WP:V|verifiability]] the reader can find it, see it is the same in the source, and give the passage it's [[WP:WEIGHT|due weight]]. "more that half" gives the source more credence than it should have. There are probably other ways to say this, and maybe other sources that give better data, and we can talk about that. That being said, I think the original stands out as the best at this point. cc: {{reply to|Dissident93|IceWelder}} [[User:Rklahn|Rklahn]] ([[User talk:Rklahn|talk]]) 17:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2022 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Gabe Newell|answered=no}}
I Want to give the real facts about Gaben. I am in a Discord call with him, and nothing on this article is true. [[Special:Contributions/2601:C7:C200:3B60:F0C8:3886:F2FB:3116|2601:C7:C200:3B60:F0C8:3886:F2FB:3116]] ([[User talk:2601:C7:C200:3B60:F0C8:3886:F2FB:3116|talk]]) 21:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:19, 12 March 2022

Template:Vital article

Gabe Newell undergraduate houses at Harvard University

Gabe Newell confirmed in an email from his publicly published address that he lived in Thayer and Winthrop houses while attending Harvard University, as confirmed here https://i.imgur.com/ctUfSBC.jpg

Gzideck (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newell's emails have been faked before, which is why shouldn't consider Imgur a reliable source. Lordtobi () 04:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this was true, would it really matter where he lived on campus anyway? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who received the email, didn't know what the best way of providing solid evidence was. The house you live in at Harvard is a big deal, demonstrated by them all having their own Wikipedia pages, such as Winthrop House. Additionally, if you go down the List of Harvard University people page, you'll find that many of them display their resident houses during their time at the college. Gzideck (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot verify who received this email, even if it was you. This is simply why Wikipedia does not accept this mouth-to-mouth information and instead relies on reliable secondary sources. If this is relevant, someone will have reported on it (e.g. a Harvard-centric mag could have this). Lordtobi () 13:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but the info can't really be verified like Lordtobi said. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is the email though, I'll email him myself and CC everyone in this conversation if need be.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any updates on this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I'm very, very new to Wikipedia so please forgive me for any errors. Regarding the page, The Seattle Times changed their archival prefix from old. to archive., and the old. one doesn't work anymore, so is it possible for anyone to update the link on reference 22 from http://old.seattletimes.com/pacificnw/2003/0518/cover02.html, to https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=20030516&slug=plongbeach18?

Thank you!

Skylamps (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skylamps, late but fixed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2021

Change his height to 1.85m (confirmed by Gaben himself https://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/osy0dk/gaben_himself_responded_to_my_email_he_is_around/ ) Emeric1414 (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Height is irrelevant for this article and shouldnt be includedFMSky (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Market share description.

"Steam controls half to 70%" and "more than half" is not the same thing. The first statement carries with it a high degree of uncertainty, where the second implies far less doubt. The citation supports the first statement, it does not support the second. I'm restoring the status quo and going back to "half to 70%", and allowing a consensus to form before editing further. cc:@Dissident93: Rklahn (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Rklahn: My changes were done due to the degree of uncertainty (a range of 20% goes beyond reasonable margin of error), but if you believe my edit also implied less doubt then fair enough. Would a simple "roughly half of the market" be an improvement over both? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the idea that a 20% range is beyond reasonable. That's actually what I think needs to be preserved here. When "half to 70%" is said, the reader is able to question it, and because of verifiability the reader can find it, see it is the same in the source, and give the passage it's due weight. "more that half" gives the source more credence than it should have. There are probably other ways to say this, and maybe other sources that give better data, and we can talk about that. That being said, I think the original stands out as the best at this point. cc: @Dissident93 and IceWelder: Rklahn (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2022

I Want to give the real facts about Gaben. I am in a Discord call with him, and nothing on this article is true. 2601:C7:C200:3B60:F0C8:3886:F2FB:3116 (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]