I was on Wikipedia earlier today, and I saw something horribly untrue about this wiki:
Call of duty wiki
- I know a more reliable, call of duty-based encyclopedia, it's called the Call of Duty wiki, it's much better and each article on wikipedia is more detailed on cod wiki, and there's even articles on characters and levels.--92.25.200.199 (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've checked it out. Most of the stuff isn't sourced and certainly not up to wikipidea's rules. Why, what about it? Noneofyour (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's just you could get more info on cod if you looked on there--78.148.183.219 (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't consider it a reliable source. I don't know about anyone else though. Noneofyour (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hey (talk) i need your help with some jerks. Darkman 4, WouldYouKindly and their pals are being soo mean to me and i want payback!!! please can you help me. williamstrother September 4, 12:02
- What are they doing? Anyways, this is not the right place to post this.Noneofyour (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- @Noneofyour- do you really think people would come here for CoD info when there are more detailed pages on CoD wiki? and who cares how many sources there are? most of the info is from testing and playing missions over and over, not from other websites. User:IamBeastly20 02:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
as you can see, Noneofyour thinks Wikipedia is a better source for Call of Duty info than us because they have more sources than us.
and yes, IamBeastly20 is me.
