Talk:Neowin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 12 March, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Archives of Previous Discussions

[edit] Discussion Page Cleaned, Good Luck

The vote to keep the new version of this article passed unanimously. I've archived it above. I was hoping that would be a fresh start for this page and several people put a lot of work into making this page respectable, but it seems that it has just gotten reverted again to the old version that is unorganized and unedited. Therefore, I have decided to absolve myself of this article and let it become whatever the community lets it become as I will not waste my time playing revert wars with anonymous IPs.

-Noneloud 07:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Due to Dan Davis encouraging me to come back to this page, I've decided to do so. Hopefully all of this Brazil4Linux crud is over and done with
-Noneloud 04:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Staff list?

Is this really necessary? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think not. Wikipedia:Vanity
What does "Wikipedia Vanity" have to do in any way, shape or form with this? None of the NeoWin creators are involved in this article at all, and neither are any family of NeoWin- which is what that link you posted refers to. Daniel Davis 22:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)
Personally, I don't think Wikipedia:Vanity has anything to do with the staff list, but having the staff list on the page seems really un-encyclopedic. A staff list really provides no extra information to the article about the site itself, so I think that BorgHunter's decision is justified.
-Noneloud 04:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV? Or true?

How can dull this down to fit the article. I find sound parts of it are true: " Their high traffic discussion forums are frequented by zealous, bright, young Microsoft fan boys, who enjoy (among other things) testing illegal beta software." [1]. Food for thought; Karma be damned. --Depakote 14:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you be a bit clearer? "How can dull this down to fit the article. I find sound parts of it are true" doesn't quite make sense... Daniel Davis 00:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

[edit] Current Version

What is the problem with the current version? Loneloud's version is ugly, poor developed and formated. Don't justify keep a crap-deloped article to satisfy the vanity of Loneloud IMHO. I'm no seeing any move of Loneloud for article increase and absolutely nothing to adjust as minimum-decent formatting. This is Encyclopedia afertall and not "This site and authors too". --LaMaroche 20:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Hello again Brazil4Linux. Please stop reverting the page back to a version that's now well over two months old. The *real* current version is quite good in and of itself, and is the result of a lot of hard work on the part of many indiviuals. Daniel Davis 21:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)
Oye vey... -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 09:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neocum

Marcel Klum and Steven Parker’s adult forum NeoCum.com deserves inclusion in this article. Neowin was underwritten by Neocum.

OT: What is the reason for Talk:Neowin if comments on the article are just deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.71.223.140 (talk • contribs).

I'm sorry to say that your information is pure nonsense that is why it is being removed. Jedi6 04:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
This also sounds like complete nonsense to me and doesn't meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. A google search turns up nothing to support what you're suggesting here. If you can't back this up with a reputable source and reference, it doesn't belong here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 04:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


A basic Google search for the terms “Neobond RedMak Neocum” delivers archived forum postings from 2000 authored by both Neobond and RedMak on a variety of topics including but not limited to establishing NeoCum.com

Direct url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:qPxIzEt_aq4J:users2.cgiforme.com/neobond/cfmboard.html+Neobond+RedMak+Neocum&hl=en&lr=&strip=1

It’s unlikely two posters on an adult message board, would conspire to impersonate the founders of Neowin.net before that community is even established.

Nonetheless, I will update with a reputable source and reference, in the next few days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.71.223.140 (talk • contribs).

Just because they have the same username doesn't mean they are the same person. Also that doesn't mean they created Neocum either, it might just be fans copying it. Jedi6 04:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding the article

I've wanted to expand this article and make it more in-dept for some time now, but I just can't seem to figure out where to start. I'm reallyworried about point of view when it comes to changing this as even though there is none to little point of view present, people still think that the article is worthy of deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neowin .

Please write back with ideas. I'm stumped on this one.

-Noneloud 04:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and be Bold. Jedi6-(need help?) 20:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed POV Comments

Does anyone object to me removing these comments:

The forum moderators are often considered to be too strict in their judgement. For example, one user on Neowin made a post on the forums offering to help with the IRC chat server. A moderator quickly closed the post with a rude comment: "Thank you, come again." The moderator could have simply said that Neowin did not require help, but instead they offered a rude and uninformative comment. Some users have begun to joke about the strictness of the moderators with remarks such as "the Gestapo has closed another post" and related sarcastic remarks.

xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 19:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shift

Neowin 5 has effectively been canceled, and Shift has pretty much taken over, so should we remove the section on "The Future of Neowin" and expand more on Shift? Also, the shot of the front page is of V3, should we move to a screen of Shift? --Simon360 00:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Simon360! Yea, replace that image. I have no idea how to do that full screen screenshot though, so if you could do it, I'd appreciate it. I don't know exactly what to say about shift though. - xxpor ( Talk| Contribs) 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finity/Last Screenshot

A preview of Neowin 5 ("Finity") <<caption to the very last screenshot

  • I pretty sure that No.5 wasn't Finity, and Finity has since been scraped for Shift, so do we still need that picture?. Peachey88 08:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Neowin 5 was Finity, but Finity was downgraded to version 4 and renamed Shift. I think the plan is to one day upgrade Shift to the feature set planned for Neowin Finity, but it hasn't happened yet. However, this is the last surviving picture of what v5 was supposed to look like. Maybe we need a page called Neowin Finity? I know lots of people who still like to look at it, since it was a nice upgrade, and people can look at it and sometimes just compare it to what we got. WE actually got more in v4 in my opinion, but not all of the promised features, and a slightly downgraded look. --205.251.4.109 00:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/o/Talk%7ENeowin_98a0.html"