Take down the NameBase article Options

[Daniel Brandt]

The last attempt to delete the NameBase article occurred nearly four years ago. I still want it taken down.

Wikipedia-watch.org is now history — this is a fair trade, it seems to me.

The NameBase article is utterly incompetent and inaccurate. No, I'm not allowed to "fix it," nor am I interested in seeing a decent article about NameBase on Wikipedia. That's because Wikipediots will make it incompetent and inaccurate soon enough, even if it starts out half-decent.

To encourage its deletion, I have nullrouted all links on en.wikipedia.org that lead to NameBase content (there are about 100 of these). I will stop doing this if and when the NameBase article comes down.

So fix it, Wikipedia.

[A Horse With No Name]

Wikipedia-watch.org is now history — this is a fair trade, it seems to me.

That is a shame - it was one of my favorite websites! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[EricBarbour]

Even better: Shortly after Brandt posted the above, Seren ran over and started "fixing" the article.....

Some people just can't see: the joke's on them.

[Silver seren]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[SB_Johnny]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Was that a "shit eating grin"?

[Fusion]

I would have thought that Daniel would like it kept just for the link to this article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/01/03/sea...-daniel-brandt/

If Ralph Nader had won the presidential election in 2000, Daniel Brandt today would occupy a suite of offices on the seventh floor of CIA headquarters in Langley. Perhaps that scenario exaggerates Nader’s abilities to scout the best talent. Brandt certainly is a wonderfully qualified candidate for director of central intelligence.

Believe me, it is very difficult indeed to buy good publicity like that.

[Eppur si muove]

NameBase looks like essential reading for conspiracy theorists. You just have to bring up a diagram this then decide not to be able to afford the sources and then one can claim that Larry O'Hara is a Searchlight agent creating ridiculous conspiracy theories that anyone can see through in order to hide how Gerry Gable is in league with John Pilger, David Icke and (via the oiuja board) Edward Heath in an attempt to defeat the Thatcherite lizardfolk. (She's not really dementing, that film is just part of the conspiracy.)

[cookiehead]

Speaking of namebase, Peggy Adler, (SPA account! OMG!), is yet another WP:AUTOBIO all-star

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bxzooo

Go Peggy!

Feel sorry for her "domestic violence" perp ex-husband getting all WikiJustice-ed up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bxz...mestic_Violence

This post has been edited by cookiehead:

[Tarc]

Even better: Shortly after Brandt posted the above, Seren ran over and started "fixing" the article.....

Some people just can't see: the joke's on them.

Perhaps Danny shouldn't have been dumb enough to call attention to it, then. Calling for a marginally-notable article to be deleted while in the presence of ARSeholes is like painting your own bullseye.

[Emperor]

Wikipedia-watch.org is now history — this is a fair trade, it seems to me.

That is a shame - it was one of my favorite websites! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Yeah what the hell? Was this talked about here? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[cookiehead]

[[Peggy Adler]]'s self promotion on WP (autobio, edited wikilink to it within the namebase article) is some sort of equal and opposite reaction to her old colleague Brandt. Unlike Brandt, she does meet notability due to the author thing.

Wonder if she knows Slim Virgin....

And whatever you do, do not put {{AUTO}} at the top of her WP AUTO BLP! She's even quicker on the draw than [[James Altucher]]'s home IP edits.

[Daniel Brandt]

The last attempt to delete the NameBase article occurred nearly four years ago. I still want it taken down.

Wikipedia-watch.org is now history — this is a fair trade, it seems to me.

The NameBase article is utterly incompetent and inaccurate. No, I'm not allowed to "fix it," nor am I interested in seeing a decent article about NameBase on Wikipedia. That's because Wikipediots will make it incompetent and inaccurate soon enough, even if it starts out half-decent.

To encourage its deletion, I have nullrouted all links on en.wikipedia.org that lead to NameBase content (there are about 100 of these). I will stop doing this if and when the NameBase article comes down.

So fix it, Wikipedia.

I can no longer offer to lift the nullroute if the article is deleted, because the entire NameBase site is now extinct.

In other news, Michael Suarez pasted dozens of items of content from NameBase to webcitation.org last month. He had an urge to show who is boss on this issue — me or Wikipedia. This was a copyright violation, and WebCite has properly taken them down.

You can thank DDoSers from encyclopediadramatica.ch for the death of NameBase (which took 27 years to deveop). Suarez, by the way, is an admin on ED.ch, where his user name is JuniusThaddeus.

[Michaeldsuarez]

I can no longer offer to lift the nullroute if the article is deleted, because the entire NameBase site is now extinct.

In other news, Michael Suarez pasted dozens of items of content from NameBase to webcitation.org last month. He had an urge to show who is boss on this issue — me or Wikipedia. This was a copyright violation, and WebCite has properly taken them down.

You can thank DDoSers from encyclopediadramatica.ch for the death of NameBase (which took 27 years to deveop). Suarez, by the way, is an admin on ED.ch, where his user name is JuniusThaddeus.

I wasn't trying to show anyone who's bigger. I was fighting against discrimination. You were discriminating against certain groups by deciding who can or can't access NameBase and its information. Wikipedia, on the other hand, doesn't discriminate; it provides information freely to anyone. I used webcitation.org in order to indiscriminately provide access to anyone. I used webcitation.org so that those using Wikipedia as a starting point for research can make use of NameBase's information.

I stated my reason for using webcitation.org clearly enough in January:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...to_NameBase.org

As far as I'm aware, Encyclopedia Dramatica isn't responsible for the DDoS attacks.

[carbuncle]

I can no longer offer to lift the nullroute if the article is deleted, because the entire NameBase site is now extinct.

In other news, Michael Suarez pasted dozens of items of content from NameBase to webcitation.org last month. He had an urge to show who is boss on this issue — me or Wikipedia. This was a copyright violation, and WebCite has properly taken them down.

You can thank DDoSers from encyclopediadramatica.ch for the death of NameBase (which took 27 years to deveop). Suarez, by the way, is an admin on ED.ch, where his user name is JuniusThaddeus.

I wasn't trying to show anyone who's bigger. I was fighting against discrimination. You were discriminating against certain groups by deciding who can or can't access NameBase and its information. Wikipedia, on the other hand, doesn't discriminate; it provides information freely to anyone. I used webcitation.org in order to indiscriminately provide access to anyone. I used webcitation.org so that those using Wikipedia as a starting point for research can make use of NameBase's information.

I stated my reason for using webcitation.org clearly enough in January:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...to_NameBase.org

As far as I'm aware, Encyclopedia Dramatica isn't responsible for the DDoS attacks.

"Wikipedia provides information freely to everyone" because that is what the people who own WP have chosen to do. If Brandt wants to restrict access to his site and the data he has compiled, isn't that his choice? Is this an "information wants to be free" argument? Sometimes I find it difficult to reconcile your WP and ED activities, since you come across as an intelligent guy, but I am beginning to suspect that it is simply an "end justifies the means"-type of crusade where WP is the good hand and ED is the bad hand that you use to advance your frei kultur goals.

[Fusion]

You were discriminating against certain groups by deciding who can or can't access NameBase and its information. Wikipedia, on the other hand, doesn't discriminate; it provides information freely to anyone.

Why pick on Daniel Brandt? Many sites have pay walls. Why pick on a relatively small website rather than a big time charger? Or are you frightened of say Rupert Murdoch?

[Daniel Brandt]

NameBase has a registered copyright. Webcitation.org took it down after I sent them a letter with a copy of my registration certificate. It wasn't a DMCA because Webcitation.org is based in Canada, but there are international treaties concerning copyrights. Suarez could have checked this out before going on a copy-and-paste orgy, if he hadn't been so eager to qualify himself as an anti-Brandt EDiot.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I was fighting against discrimination. You were discriminating against certain groups by deciding who can or can't access NameBase and its information. Wikipedia, on the other hand, doesn't discriminate; it provides information freely to anyone.

Perhaps you intended to say "Wikipedia provides misinformation freely to anyone."

[Heat]

I can no longer offer to lift the nullroute if the article is deleted, because the entire NameBase site is now extinct.

In other news, Michael Suarez pasted dozens of items of content from NameBase to webcitation.org last month. He had an urge to show who is boss on this issue — me or Wikipedia. This was a copyright violation, and WebCite has properly taken them down.

You can thank DDoSers from encyclopediadramatica.ch for the death of NameBase (which took 27 years to deveop). Suarez, by the way, is an admin on ED.ch, where his user name is JuniusThaddeus.

I wasn't trying to show anyone who's bigger. I was fighting against discrimination. You were discriminating against certain groups by deciding who can or can't access NameBase and its information. Wikipedia, on the other hand, doesn't discriminate; it provides information freely to anyone. I used webcitation.org in order to indiscriminately provide access to anyone. I used webcitation.org so that those using Wikipedia as a starting point for research can make use of NameBase's information.

I stated my reason for using webcitation.org clearly enough in January:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...to_NameBase.org

As far as I'm aware, Encyclopedia Dramatica isn't responsible for the DDoS attacks.

Interesting that Suarez is both an EDer and an advocate of the *rights* of Wikipedia. According to his WP Signpost the fact that people using WP are inconvenienced if something WP cites isn't available it is justifiable for him to violate copyright laws with a massive cut and paste job. But if WP users have the right to unfettered access to WP sources via Wikipedia, why doesn't Suarez also go on a massive cut and paste campaign to copy firewalled newspaper or journal articles? It's some courageous warrior who is willing to crusade for free access to a small, unfunded site but not willing to take on large media companies. Brave man, indeed.

[Fusion]

Why pick on Daniel Brandt? Many sites have pay walls. Why pick on a relatively small website rather than a big time charger? Or are you frightened of say Rupert Murdoch?

But if WP users have the right to unfettered access to WP sources via Wikipedia, why doesn't Suarez also go on a massive cut and paste campaign to copy firewalled newspaper or journal articles? It's some courageous warrior who is willing to crusade for free access to a small, unfunded site but not willing to take on large media companies. Brave man, indeed.

I am grateful to Heat for agreeing with me so enthusiastically. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Tarc]

I can no longer offer to lift the nullroute if the article is deleted, because the entire NameBase site is now extinct.

Brandt, at the rate you're going you may just tip the notability scales into getting your own BLP article restored. The Register and Betabeat, among others, have covered Scroogle's downfall in the last week or so.

Perhaps we'll see if the venerable Article Rescue Squadron, who rarely meets a subject matter it doesn't vote to keep, is interested.