The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Useful Links: Featured Article CandidatesFeatured Article ReviewArticles for DeletionDeletion Review

2 Pages V < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Take down the NameBase article
Somey
post Tue 28th February 2012, 10:38am
Post #21


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sun 26th February 2012, 8:07am) *
I wasn't trying to show anyone who's bigger. I was fighting against discrimination.

My God, man, listen to yourself! Surely you can't possibly believe what you're saying? It's utterly absurd.

I mean, if you guys want to DDoS small websites that are trying to make the internet a better place in the face of increasingly widespread corporate and government control-grabs, shakeouts and buy-downs, then that's your call - but please, at least have the decency not to insult our intelligence like this. You're the bad guys at this point, that much is well beyond obvious by now.

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

As a contributor to both Wikipedia and its support site, surely you're familiar with the so-called "duck test"...?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fusion
post Tue 28th February 2012, 1:00pm
Post #22


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 29th Nov 2011, 12:40pm
Member No.: 71,526



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Sun 26th February 2012, 2:07pm) *

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 was at University not that many years ago. We had a library as many universities do. That library was not open to the public, just to staff and students and the occasional legitimate researcher who asked nicely. Is it not shameful that a University was discriminating against certain groups by deciding who can or can't access its private library and its information? I hope that no other university would try to do such a thing. I will not reveal its name or Mr. Suarez and his friends might picket it.

This post has been edited by Fusion: Tue 28th February 2012, 1:02pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Michaeldsuarez
post Tue 12th March 2013, 12:06pm
Post #23


Über Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon 9th Aug 2010, 7:51pm
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 16th January 2012, 3:26pm) *

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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...d_nomination%29

They're taking down the "Scroogle" article again. Although Thargor Orlando believes that the article was restored without a discussion, there was an undeletion discussion in February 2012.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Tue 12th March 2013, 12:07pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jay
post Wed 13th March 2013, 12:35pm
Post #24


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun 23rd Aug 2009, 5:15pm
Member No.: 13,123



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Tue 12th March 2013, 12:06pm) *

They're taking down the "Scroogle" article again.

I doubt that there would ever have been a Scroogle article had Daniel Brandt not been involved. It seems far from notable.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th 11 17, 7:08pm