Please AfD the Google_Watch article, It's so bad that I'm embarrassed Options

[Daniel Brandt]

The Wikipedia article on Google Watch is a piece of shit. Will some kind soul please nominate it for deletion?

For example, the cookie-expiration line is out of date. For the last 2.5 years, they ostensibly expire in two years. However, Google admits that as the expiration date approaches, they are automatically renewed for another two years. To get the cookie to expire, you have to avoid all Google sites for the entire two years, or wait until your hard disk heads for the dumpster, or delete them yourself.

The "Response" section says this: "A May 2003 PC World article described Google Watch as "perhaps justifiably paranoid",[4] however Google's defenders assert that Google Watch offers very little evidence to back up its allegations.[5]" But these citations are six years old! In the seven years since Google-Watch.org began, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of Google critics.

If Wikipedia must mention Google Watch, note that it's already mentioned and linked in this Wikipedia article. That's okay by me, because my name isn't on that one.

The Wikipedia article on Google-Watch.org is such junk that I decided a year ago to hide the whois for the site behind a proxy. It's downright embarrassing to have my name in that Wikipedia article. But I'm banned from Wikipedia and cannot nominate it myself.

(By the way, a person who is banned from Wikipedia should have the right to demand that any article that names him or her be edited to exclude his or her name.)

[Daniel Brandt]

How many DRV's have involved me during the last four years?

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/SteelyKnifes.jpg)
"You can check out anytime you
like, but you can never leave."

[RMHED]

How many DRV's have involved me during the last four years?

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/SteelyKnifes.jpg)
"You can check out anytime you
like, but you can never leave."

Who gives a fuck?

Aside from you of course and the statistical anal retentives.

Let's face it Danny boy there's a part of you that just loves to play the victim. Admit it, you want that 'pedia cock to shaft you, just so you can complain about it afterwards.

[Daniel Brandt]

Who gives a fuck?

Aside from you of course and the statistical anal retentives.

Let's face it Danny boy there's a part of you that just loves to play the victim. Admit it, you want that 'pedia cock to shaft you, just so you can complain about it afterwards.

And let me remind your who started all of this: SlimVirgin, in September 2005, started a stub on me after deciding months earlier that I was an unreliable source. She felt that I needed to be exposed because I wasn't sufficiently pro-Berlet and anti-LaRouche. Jimbo backed her up completely when I appealed to him to delete the stub. From my perspective, it's been getting more Kafkaesque ever since.

P.S.: Are you another one of those teenagers, or what?

We need to get rid of that article. We've subjected Brandt to hundreds of thousands of words of debate, 14 AfDs, I don't know how many DRVs — wall-to-wall bickering and childishness for 18 sorry months. We've allowed his article to be edited by any anonymous teenager who turns up with a grudge, and the decision to keep the wretched thing has been made 13 times by people who normally edit Star Trek. We've made complete fools of ourselves as a project.

No matter the merits of the article, the process he's been put through is totally unacceptable by any standard. We've shown we can't be trusted with a Brandt bio, and we should delete it for that reason alone, no matter how notable any of us thinks he is.

— SlimVirgin
June 14, 2007

[RMHED]

Who gives a fuck?

Aside from you of course and the statistical anal retentives.

Let's face it Danny boy there's a part of you that just loves to play the victim. Admit it, you want that 'pedia cock to shaft you, just so you can complain about it afterwards.

And let me remind your who started all of this: SlimVirgin, in September 2005, started a stub on me after deciding months earlier that I was an unreliable source. She felt that I needed to be exposed because I wasn't sufficiently pro-Berlet and anti-LaRouche. Jimbo backed her up completely when I appealed to him to delete the stub. From my perspective, it's been getting more Kafkaesque ever since.

P.S.: Are you another one of those teenagers, or what?

Appealing to Jimmy is a waste of time, you should have told him to delete the stub or you'd pay him a personal visit that he might not enjoy.

P.S. Answer: What.