|
|
|
Please AfD the Google_Watch article, It's so bad that I'm embarrassed |
|
|
Daniel Brandt |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined:
Member No.: 77
|
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 For example, the cookie-expiration line is out of date.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.)
|
|
|
|
Doc glasgow |
|
Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90
|
Well, someone beat me to AfD it. Now, we can see what will happen. Incidentally, who here is [[User:Paz y Unidad]]. Because, if I wanted to troll, my money is that a checkuser would identify this as some banned individual. (It is really as well I'm not a drama- stoker!) This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Fri 4th December 2009, 4:15pm) It would really help the cause if banned users didn't start these things. As then the issue gets conflated ("omgz we must deleat beacuz unperson maed it").
Right — it only contributes to the General Melee (T-C-L-K-R-D)
(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) Ja Ja (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)
|
|
|
|
Daniel Brandt |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined:
Member No.: 77
|
Well, thanks y'all, and I'll cross my fingers. If it gets deleted, I may once again stick an email address on the site, and take it out of the whois proxy, and also put a proper phone number on the whois. Then once again I may get the occasional call from a reporter as Google (hopefully someday soon) gets hit with a ten-ton antitrust suit from the Justice Department.
What I cannot handle is some idiot reporter reading the Google_Watch article on Wikipedia and then contacting me. If this happens, his mind is already polluted by the time he is able to find me, which is why I had to make myself difficult to locate.
Google just announced their free, public, super-fast DNS service. My guess is that soon Chrome will use it as the default, and soon after that Firefox will too, so as not to lose their lucrative Google contract when it comes up for renewal in 2011 (it's worth about $90 million a year to Mozilla Corporation).
Think of all the user tracking Google can do!
In the meantime, you have to stick their DNS servers ( 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 ) into your browser yourself, which at the moment makes it look like a cool public service instead of yet another evil plan for world domination.
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
Haw, haw, what a sock drawer: QUOTE That it's notable seems to have been confirmed in past deletion discussions - if there are problems with the content, identify and fix them. --Kotniski (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: What agenda do you have to push, Kotnitski? Remember, this is not the first time you've been hanging around articles relating to Daniel Brandt. This was you in April 2008, trying to get Daniel Brandt listed on a surname page listing notable people with the last name "Brandt". I see this as an attempt at baiting, and it's obvious that you have an agenda to push regarding this. So, what is it? Paz y Unidad (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
To stop Wikipedia's readers from being deprived of good information just because a few obsessed people don't like it, I suppose. What's yours? You seem very new here to be nominating controversial articles for deletion.--Kotniski (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC) But seriously, what is with Kotniski? Normally he edits Polish-related articles, and keeps a low profile. Many times in the past when one of Daniel's unwanted pages came up for AFD, he's in there, fighting like hell to keep it. Always in parallel with John Nevard..... This post has been edited by EricBarbour:
|
|
|
|
MZMcBride |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 671
Joined:
Member No.: 10,962
|
QUOTE(Alison @ Fri 4th December 2009, 3:20pm) I'll look into it later today. It's already on my hitlist, on the heels of the Wikipedia-Watch and Scroogle successes. On my cell here at the moment, tho' (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I don't suppose you've seen the (second) Scroogle DRV? Some admin should really just step in right now and close that under the premise that Deletion review is final.
|
|
|
|
Daniel Brandt |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined:
Member No.: 77
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 4th December 2009, 5:13pm) But seriously, what is with Kotniski? Normally he edits Polish-related articles, and keeps a low profile. Many times in the past when one of Daniel's unwanted pages came up for AFD, he's in there, fighting like hell to keep it. Always in parallel with John Nevard..... Kotniski is Dr John Catlow, Senior Lecturer, Institute of Linguistics, Department of Information Systems, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland. Put "dr john catlow" into Google and, with the help of the "Translate this page" link, you will find him. He has a PhD in math from England, and he's into software development on the Wikipedia bugzilla mailing list. Haven't found a birthdate or pic yet. Found a pic but still working on his age.
|
|
|
|
Alison |
|
Skinny Cow!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,514
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 1,806
|
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 4th December 2009, 7:19pm) Kotniski is Dr John Catlow, Senior Lecturer, Institute of Linguistics, Department of Information Systems, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland. Put "dr john catlow" into Google and, with the help of the "Translate this page" link, you will find him. He has a PhD in math from England, and he's into software development on the Wikipedia bugzilla mailing list. Haven't found a birthdate or pic yet. Found a pic but still working on his age. Daniel, I know my saying this is generally the kiss-of-death for these things, but please don't put him up on Hivemind. Not right now, please!! It's a hard enough battle right now and doing that is only going to make things worse. Please don't (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) EDIT: Ugh - too late
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Alison @ Fri 4th December 2009, 11:35pm) QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 4th December 2009, 7:19pm) Kotniski is Dr John Catlow, Senior Lecturer, Institute of Linguistics, Department of Information Systems, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland. Put "dr john catlow" into Google and, with the help of the "Translate this page" link, you will find him. He has a PhD in math from England, and he's into software development on the Wikipedia bugzilla mailing list. Haven't found a birthdate or pic yet. Found a pic but still working on his age. Daniel, I know my saying this is generally the kiss-of-death for these things, but please don't put him up on Hivemind. Not right now, please!! It's a hard enough battle right now and doing that is only going to make things worse. Please don't (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) You don't mean to say that anyone would want to stop Wikipedia Review's readers from being deprived of good information just because a few obsessed people don't like it? Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
|
|
|
|
Alison |
|
Skinny Cow!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,514
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 1,806
|
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 4th December 2009, 8:52pm) QUOTE(Alison @ Fri 4th December 2009, 10:35pm) Daniel, I know my saying this is generally the kiss-of-death for these things, but please don't put him up on Hivemind. Not right now, please!! It's a hard enough battle right now and doing that is only going to make things worse. Please don't (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) Sorry, but this guy has been stalking me, and I'm fed up with it. Do you have any idea what that's like? Funny you should ask that. Showing up at your place, is he? I don't need to explain to you, Daniel, that doing this is only going to bring all the usual idiots out of the woodwork to ensure the stupid article is now going to be kept? Nothing like a little spite and vengeance to bring 'em all out. Why the fuck do I bother?
|
|
|
|
Alison |
|
Skinny Cow!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,514
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 1,806
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 4th December 2009, 11:05pm) Looks like a nearly clean sweep on the Delete side for the "New Order" of Wikipedia.
O RLY? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) PS: Jonas - I see you reading this. Don't pull a stunt like that again. It only causes more problems now that you're blocked (and not by me)
|
|
|
|
Doc glasgow |
|
Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90
|
QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 5th December 2009, 7:21am) QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 4th December 2009, 11:05pm) Looks like a nearly clean sweep on the Delete side for the "New Order" of Wikipedia.
O RLY? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) PS: Jonas - I see you reading this. Don't pull a stunt like that again. It only causes more problems now that you're blocked (and not by me) I reverted that, but he's not blocked. Had I been an admin he'd have been facing a month block for that. He's too experienced not to know that harassment and libel are not to be tolerated on wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
Lar |
|
"His blandness goes to 11!"
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,116
Joined:
From: A large LEGO storage facility
Member No.: 4,290
|
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 5th December 2009, 7:58am) QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 5th December 2009, 7:21am) QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 4th December 2009, 11:05pm) Looks like a nearly clean sweep on the Delete side for the "New Order" of Wikipedia.
O RLY? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) PS: Jonas - I see you reading this. Don't pull a stunt like that again. It only causes more problems now that you're blocked (and not by me) I reverted that, but he's not blocked. Had I been an admin he'd have been facing a month block for that. He's too experienced not to know that harassment and libel are not to be tolerated on wikipedia. Indeed. I think a month is about right so that's what he got. QUOTE(dtobias @ Sat 5th December 2009, 9:33am) "Harassment" is one of the most ridiculously abused words on the Internet, referring to anybody saying or doing anything to or about you that you don't like. Everybody from Brandt to Slim Virgin to MONGO uses such accusations to suppress people they dislike.
I agree.
|
|
|
|
Nerd |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 672
Joined:
From: Cloud cuckoo land
Member No.: 11,945
|
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 5th December 2009, 11:58am) QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 5th December 2009, 7:21am) QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 4th December 2009, 11:05pm) Looks like a nearly clean sweep on the Delete side for the "New Order" of Wikipedia.
O RLY? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) PS: Jonas - I see you reading this. Don't pull a stunt like that again. It only causes more problems now that you're blocked (and not by me) I reverted that, but he's not blocked. Had I been an admin he'd have been facing a month block for that. He's too experienced not to know that harassment and libel are not to be tolerated on wikipedia. You are an admin.
|
|
|
|
Doc glasgow |
|
Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90
|
QUOTE(Nerd @ Sat 5th December 2009, 3:27pm) QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 5th December 2009, 11:58am) QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 5th December 2009, 7:21am) QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 4th December 2009, 11:05pm) Looks like a nearly clean sweep on the Delete side for the "New Order" of Wikipedia.
O RLY? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) PS: Jonas - I see you reading this. Don't pull a stunt like that again. It only causes more problems now that you're blocked (and not by me) I reverted that, but he's not blocked. Had I been an admin he'd have been facing a month block for that. He's too experienced not to know that harassment and libel are not to be tolerated on wikipedia. You are an admin. Not really. The "Doc glasgow" account is +sysop, but I haven't used that account for 18 months and have forgotten the password. This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:
|
|
|
|
Doc glasgow |
|
Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90
|
QUOTE(Lar @ Sat 5th December 2009, 7:57pm) QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 5th December 2009, 12:15pm) QUOTE(Nerd @ Sat 5th December 2009, 3:27pm) You are an admin.
Not really. The "Doc glasgow" account is +sysop, but I haven't used that account for 18 months and have forgotten the password. The bits can be switched about, I expect, you have but to ask. Just not here. Ha! And I was looking forward to being the first person to be sysoped "per request on Wikipedia review". We could have a shadow RFA process here, no?
|
|
|
|
MBisanz |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 478
Joined:
Member No.: 5,693
|
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 5th December 2009, 9:32pm) QUOTE(Lar @ Sat 5th December 2009, 7:57pm) QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 5th December 2009, 12:15pm) QUOTE(Nerd @ Sat 5th December 2009, 3:27pm) You are an admin.
Not really. The "Doc glasgow" account is +sysop, but I haven't used that account for 18 months and have forgotten the password. The bits can be switched about, I expect, you have but to ask. Just not here. Ha! And I was looking forward to being the first person to be sysoped "per request on Wikipedia review". We could have a shadow RFA process here, no? I'll be more than happy to resysop you, if you ask at either acceptable place. since it is annoying when it is done offwiki and later people dispute the circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Lar |
|
"His blandness goes to 11!"
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,116
Joined:
From: A large LEGO storage facility
Member No.: 4,290
|
QUOTE(MBisanz @ Sat 5th December 2009, 5:24pm) QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 5th December 2009, 9:32pm) QUOTE(Lar @ Sat 5th December 2009, 7:57pm) QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 5th December 2009, 12:15pm) QUOTE(Nerd @ Sat 5th December 2009, 3:27pm) You are an admin.
Not really. The "Doc glasgow" account is +sysop, but I haven't used that account for 18 months and have forgotten the password. The bits can be switched about, I expect, you have but to ask. Just not here. Ha! And I was looking forward to being the first person to be sysoped "per request on Wikipedia review". We could have a shadow RFA process here, no? I'll be more than happy to resysop you, if you ask at either acceptable place. since it is annoying when it is done offwiki and later people dispute the circumstances. The other one needs the bit flipped off though, at or near the same time.
|
|
|
|
MBisanz |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 478
Joined:
Member No.: 5,693
|
QUOTE(Lar @ Sat 5th December 2009, 10:44pm) QUOTE(MBisanz @ Sat 5th December 2009, 5:24pm) QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 5th December 2009, 9:32pm) QUOTE(Lar @ Sat 5th December 2009, 7:57pm) QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 5th December 2009, 12:15pm) QUOTE(Nerd @ Sat 5th December 2009, 3:27pm) You are an admin.
Not really. The "Doc glasgow" account is +sysop, but I haven't used that account for 18 months and have forgotten the password. The bits can be switched about, I expect, you have but to ask. Just not here. Ha! And I was looking forward to being the first person to be sysoped "per request on Wikipedia review". We could have a shadow RFA process here, no? I'll be more than happy to resysop you, if you ask at either acceptable place. since it is annoying when it is done offwiki and later people dispute the circumstances. The other one needs the bit flipped off though, at or near the same time. I do know how to edit m:SRP.
|
|
|
|
wjhonson |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 144
Joined:
Member No.: 4,452
|
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sat 5th December 2009, 3:58am) QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 5th December 2009, 7:21am) QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 4th December 2009, 11:05pm) Looks like a nearly clean sweep on the Delete side for the "New Order" of Wikipedia.
O RLY? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) PS: Jonas - I see you reading this. Don't pull a stunt like that again. It only causes more problems now that you're blocked (and not by me) I reverted that, but he's not blocked. Had I been an admin he'd have been facing a month block for that. He's too experienced not to know that harassment and libel are not to be tolerated on wikipedia. When I saw that edit, I immediately recognized it as frivolous and flip. That is not harassment and libel. A "one month block" seems quite excessive for such a bit of silliness. Perhaps we should allow Daniel himself to comment on this.
|
|
|
|
Tarc |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined:
Member No.: 5,309
|
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 9th December 2009, 10:34am) There are a couple of idiots trying to argue "Keep" on the AfD page. One claimed that my name wasn't even mentioned in the article. I added this comment on that page: QUOTE My name is mentioned in the box on that page. Currently Wikipedia's Google_Watch article shows up as number 5 in a search for my name (without quotes around my name) on every one of the 61 Google data centers used by Scroogle. Even if my name wasn't in the box on that page, it would most likely rank the same. Neither Yahoo nor Bing rank on this Wikipedia article for my name. Until Wikipedia does something to control its Google rankings, I consider this a BLP issue. In the meantime, deletion of this article is the only reasonable solution. -- Daniel Brandt ~~~~ (ZOMG! A BANNED USER HAS ADDED A COMMENT! BAN HIM AGAIN! CALL JIMBO!) That would be Cyclopia, of Miriam Sakewitz fame. This halfwit shouldn't be allowed within spitting distance of BLP articles.
|
|
|
|
Cyclopia |
|
Abominable sociopath, kool-aid addict.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 159
Joined:
From: Cambridge, UK
Member No.: 14,160
|
QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 9th December 2009, 4:53pm) QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 9th December 2009, 10:34am) There are a couple of idiots trying to argue "Keep" on the AfD page. One claimed that my name wasn't even mentioned in the article. I added this comment on that page: QUOTE My name is mentioned in the box on that page. Currently Wikipedia's Google_Watch article shows up as number 5 in a search for my name (without quotes around my name) on every one of the 61 Google data centers used by Scroogle. Even if my name wasn't in the box on that page, it would most likely rank the same. Neither Yahoo nor Bing rank on this Wikipedia article for my name. Until Wikipedia does something to control its Google rankings, I consider this a BLP issue. In the meantime, deletion of this article is the only reasonable solution. -- Daniel Brandt ~~~~ (ZOMG! A BANNED USER HAS ADDED A COMMENT! BAN HIM AGAIN! CALL JIMBO!) That would be Cyclopia, of Miriam Sakewitz fame. This halfwit shouldn't be allowed within spitting distance of BLP articles. Someone called?
|
|
|
|
Cyclopia |
|
Abominable sociopath, kool-aid addict.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 159
Joined:
From: Cambridge, UK
Member No.: 14,160
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 10th December 2009, 2:42am) QUOTE(Cyclopia @ Wed 9th December 2009, 4:02pm) QUOTE(Tarc @ Wed 9th December 2009, 4:53pm) QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 9th December 2009, 10:34am) (ZOMG! A BANNED USER HAS ADDED A COMMENT! BAN HIM AGAIN! CALL JIMBO!) That would be Cyclopia, of Miriam Sakewitz fame. This halfwit shouldn't be allowed within spitting distance of BLP articles. Someone called? Before anyone else comments, just let me say this. Cyclopia, I think that you are a little shit. You are helping to make Wikipedia suck, and obviously you also think it's fun. We agree to disagree. Didn't expect a more constructive comment from WR, however. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) If anyone has decent questions, happy to answer, that's the only reason I raised my head up. Other than that, goodbye again.
|
|
|
|
Daniel Brandt |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined:
Member No.: 77
|
QUOTE(Tarc @ Fri 11th December 2009, 6:52pm) No purple box, looks like NuclearWafare already added a blurb about GW to the article, and that should be the end of it. Until someone fires up the inevitable DRV, of course... Okay, now the purple box is gone, but Google_Watch redirects to Criticism_of_Google. Wikipedia's redirects aren't really redirects, and now Criticism_of_Google will show up at number 5 in a search for my name on Google. We went through this when my bio got redirected to the PIR article in June 2007. It took another year to get the PIR article deleted. I say kill the redirect. It's the only way to purge this link to my name in Google's index. Anything that's on the first page of Google's results in a search for my name, is like low-hanging fruit for the Mark Binmores out there. You will start to see ugly lines about me in Criticism_of_Google that will persist for months or years.
|
|
|
|
NuclearWarfare |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined:
Member No.: 9,506
|
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sat 12th December 2009, 1:59am) QUOTE(Tarc @ Fri 11th December 2009, 6:52pm) No purple box, looks like NuclearWafare already added a blurb about GW to the article, and that should be the end of it. Until someone fires up the inevitable DRV, of course... Okay, now the purple box is gone, but Google_Watch redirects to Criticism_of_Google. Wikipedia's redirects aren't really redirects, and now Criticism_of_Google will show up at number 5 in a search for my name on Google. We went through this when my bio got redirected to the PIR article in June 2007. It took another year to get the PIR article deleted. I say kill the redirect. It's the only way to purge this link to my name in Google's index. Would you be OK with the page history being moved to Talk:Criticism of Google/Google Watch and noindexed? The redirect would be deleted in that case. This post has been edited by NuclearWarfare:
|
|
|
|
Cimorene |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 16
Joined:
Member No.: 14,655
|
QUOTE(Tarc @ Fri 11th December 2009, 6:52pm) No purple box, looks like NuclearWafare already added a blurb about GW to the article, and that should be the end of it. Until someone fires up the inevitable DRV, of course... Sigh. Here it is.
|
|
|
|
Random832 |
|
meh
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,933
Joined:
Member No.: 4,844
|
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sat 12th December 2009, 1:59am) Okay, now the purple box is gone, but Google_Watch redirects to Criticism_of_Google. Wikipedia's redirects aren't really redirects, and now Criticism_of_Google will show up at number 5 in a search for my name on Google. As I've pointed out every time you've said this in the past, this has nothing to do with not being real redirects because Google gives the same treatment to real redirects. Maybe even more so since the page rank of both pages combines. But, more to the point - unlike the time when there was a redirect from your name to the PIR article, your name isn't in this URL. And "google juice" doesn't stay permanently with a page as the content changes, as I'm sure you learned while refining your google-manipulation techniques. As long as the article doesn't mention your name, it should drop off the google results quickly. (Did the PIR article ever not mention your name?) This post has been edited by Random832:
|
|
|
|
Daniel Brandt |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined:
Member No.: 77
|
QUOTE(Random832 @ Fri 11th December 2009, 11:07pm) QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sat 12th December 2009, 1:59am) Okay, now the purple box is gone, but Google_Watch redirects to Criticism_of_Google. Wikipedia's redirects aren't really redirects, and now Criticism_of_Google will show up at number 5 in a search for my name on Google. As I've pointed out every time you've said this in the past, this has nothing to do with not being real redirects because Google gives the same treatment to real redirects. Maybe even more so since the page rank of both pages combines. But, more to the point - unlike the time when there was a redirect from your name to the PIR article, your name isn't in this URL. And "google juice" doesn't stay permanently with a page as the content changes, as I'm sure you learned while refining your google-manipulation techniques. As long as the article doesn't mention your name, it should drop off the google results quickly. (Did the PIR article ever not mention your name?) And I pointed out to you that if my name is in the anchor text of the links pointing to the page (and now that page is the Criticism page, not the original Google_Watch article), then this matters more than whether the name is on the page itself. I noticed this back in 2002. One blogger in Italy stuck my name in the title of one post, and his blog post shot up to number one in a search for my name. Do a search for "namebase" in Google. The Public Interest Registry is number 6. I sold the pir.org domain to the Registry in early 2003. There were three full months of redirects to namebase.org written into the contract. I also spent a huge number of hours asking everyone I could find who linked to namebase when it was pir.org, to change their link to namebase.org. Almost seven years later, what do we see? It's still at number 6. The word "namebase" is nowhere on the pir.org site, and hasn't been since I sold the domain. Is seven years — and still going strong — what you mean by "dropping off the Google results quickly"? Here's another example: My name is not on the wikipedia-watch.org home page and hasn't been for about two years. Yet that page comes up number one in a search for my name. Why do you think that happens? It's because external links pointing to that page contain my name in the anchor text (or maybe in close proximity to the anchor text, like in the same sentence). The external links that pointed to the Google_Watch article caused it to show up at number 5 on Google in a search for my name. Yes my name was on that page once, in tiny print. But much more significantly, the external links pointing to that Wikipedia article are providing juice for my name. Now those same external links are providing that exact same juice for my name as it points to the Criticism article. That article doesn't contain my name, but I doubt that this will make a difference. Moreover, can you guarantee that no one will ever insert my name in that article? Yes, my name was in the PIR article. But that wasn't the most important factor. As soon as the redirect from the bio to PIR was in place, the PIR article slammed into first place for a search on my name. The juice from my name in the PIR article helped somewhat, but the major juice was my name in or close to the anchor text of external links — the links that used to point to my bio. Now they all pointed to the PIR article. The redirect has to come down, and I'll keep fighting to get it taken down. The question isn't how much you or I know, or don't know, about Google. The real question is why does Wikipedia have to make it so hard for me to get off of their damn site?
|
|
|
|
NuclearWarfare |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined:
Member No.: 9,506
|
QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 12th December 2009, 9:53pm) QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sat 12th December 2009, 11:02am) NuclearWarfare should kill the redirect. In the AfD, there were only four recommendations for a redirect among the eighteen "Delete" votes. I don't think NuclearWarfare was aware of the problem with redirects, and the fact that I would object to a redirect.
And he's done just that (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) It's also gone to DRV (again), so don't get your hopes up.
|
|
|
|
NuclearWarfare |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined:
Member No.: 9,506
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 12th December 2009, 11:07pm) QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Sat 12th December 2009, 2:00pm) It's also gone to DRV (again), so don't get your hopes up. There need to be userboxes for fledgling DRV inclusionist trolls. Coffee and Cyclopia are on the shortlist. Coffee? An inclusionist? Are you sure you aren't confusing him with someone else?
|
|
|
|
Alison |
|
Skinny Cow!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,514
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 1,806
|
QUOTE(Trick cyclist @ Sat 12th December 2009, 3:00pm) Hmm the only supports so far for deletion come from well-known WR trolls MZMcBride and Lar. (Even prominent ED admin Alison hasn't supported.) Clearly this is a WR conspiracy. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Well RMHED went and recreated it off his own bat, right in the middle of a DRV. I've deleted it again, as is proper. Dude. What are you playing at? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) Edit: And back again, thanks to Cyclopia (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) It's obvious now that this is malicious, and little to do with inclusionism and hidebound Wikirulesery.
|
|
|
|
RMHED |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined:
Member No.: 11,716
|
QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 12th December 2009, 11:30pm) QUOTE(Trick cyclist @ Sat 12th December 2009, 3:00pm) Hmm the only supports so far for deletion come from well-known WR trolls MZMcBride and Lar. (Even prominent ED admin Alison hasn't supported.) Clearly this is a WR conspiracy. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Well RMHED went and recreated it off his own bat, right in the middle of a DRV. I've deleted it again, as is proper. Dude. What are you playing at? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) Edit: And back again, thanks to Cyclopia (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) It's obvious now that this is malicious, and little to do with inclusionism and hidebound Wikirulesery. What are you playing at Alison, Google Watch should be redirected to Criticism of Google, I believe Danny boy can't really object to this as long as the article history remains deleted. By the by shouldn't you be doing important admin stuff on ED rather than pissing about on WP?
|
|
|
|
Cyclopia |
|
Abominable sociopath, kool-aid addict.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 159
Joined:
From: Cambridge, UK
Member No.: 14,160
|
QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 12th December 2009, 11:30pm) QUOTE(Trick cyclist @ Sat 12th December 2009, 3:00pm) Hmm the only supports so far for deletion come from well-known WR trolls MZMcBride and Lar. (Even prominent ED admin Alison hasn't supported.) Clearly this is a WR conspiracy. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Well RMHED went and recreated it off his own bat, right in the middle of a DRV. I've deleted it again, as is proper. Dude. What are you playing at? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) Edit: And back again, thanks to Cyclopia (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) It's obvious now that this is malicious, and little to do with inclusionism and hidebound Wikirulesery. Since I've been again called directly in question, I desire to answer. No, it is not malicious, nor I understand what malice are you implying. Simply, it is a very legitimate search term (I personally think it should be a legitimate article too, but a merge is fine), and the deletion of the redirect has not been discussed at all. There is no reason at all for the redirect to be deleted apart from Mr.Brandt concerns about Google ranking algorithms -and that's something he should ask to Google, not to Wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
Daniel Brandt |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined:
Member No.: 77
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Brandt |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined:
Member No.: 77
|
QUOTE(RMHED @ Sat 12th December 2009, 6:13pm) 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? QUOTE 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 |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined:
Member No.: 11,716
|
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sun 13th December 2009, 12:25am) QUOTE(RMHED @ Sat 12th December 2009, 6:13pm) 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.
|
|
|
|
Coffee |
|
Your favorite drink, with that perfect touch of bitterness.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 132
Joined:
Member No.: 15,124
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 12th December 2009, 5:07pm) QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Sat 12th December 2009, 2:00pm) It's also gone to DRV (again), so don't get your hopes up. There need to be userboxes for fledgling DRV inclusionist trolls. Coffee and Cyclopia are on the shortlist. Wait what? Did I miss something? Last I checked I was on the "rouge deleting admin" list. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)
|
|
|
|
Coffee |
|
Your favorite drink, with that perfect touch of bitterness.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 132
Joined:
Member No.: 15,124
|
|
|
|
|
Doc glasgow |
|
Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90
|
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 9th January 2010, 9:05pm) QUOTE(Alison @ Sat 9th January 2010, 7:31am) And the continuing stoooooory; Kendrick7 waited a month after the AfD was courtesy-blanked to suddenly revert it again. That was just mean-spirited (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) Gotta stick it to Brandt at every opportunity, eh? Either way, NuclearWarfare stepped in, reverted the unblanking, protected the AfD and left a snippy note on his talk page. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) He had to wait because he was blocked for a month because of this. He was banned for a month for using Wikipedia for abusing a living person. He returns from that ban and immediately proceeds to wikilawyer to get a blanking of an AfD done as a "courtesy" to that same living person reversed. If I were still active as a WP sysop, he'd be looking an an immediate reimposition of his ban for annother month (indeed perhaps indefinate) until he learns not to use Wikipedia to pursue an obvious vendetta against a living person. This is trolling pure and simple - and an attempt to harrass a real identifiable person, whilst hiding behind his screen name. Indeed, I'd ban his ass. (WP:BLP WP:BATTLE WP:TROLL)
|
|
|
|
Nerd |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 672
Joined:
From: Cloud cuckoo land
Member No.: 11,945
|
QUOTE(Alison @ Sun 10th January 2010, 12:58am) And onwards it goes yet again (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) Today is clearly International Piss Brandt Off Day (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) Enric Naval recreated Wikipedia Watch today and redirected it to Criticism of WikipediaI deleted it as G4 (recreated page that was deleted per a deletion discussion); (del/undel) 13:36, 9 January 2010 Alison (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Wikipedia Watch" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: C'mon now. This just went thru AfD) (view/restore) Enric immediately demanded I restore it, which I rightly refused, so now it's gone to DrV where the usual suspects are gathering. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del.../2010_January_9What is it about Daniel Brandt that brings out so many haters??? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif) PS: Hi guys, I know you're reading this. Why are you doing this? What is so awful about a redirect (other than the fact Daniel doesn't like it)? At any other time it would be completely reasonable to redirect it, and yet because it's Daniel "I collect pictures of children and put them on my website" Brandt, everyone is tiptoing round following every demand he makes. The redirect doesn't violate BLP in any way, shape or form, so what gives? G4 is invalid, as the people have noted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |