Talk:Newgrounds/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 2005

[edit] stop editing this page

please stop messing, around with it, what it says now is what is correct.

Newgrunds is a community that is in a constant state of change. The automated portal gets hundred(s) of movies a day, one of the most active message boards online, a staff that is invloved in a wide varietty popular websites, music labels and a Video game company and that generates news of varying levels of importance every day. Would you post in the nintendo discussion page and tell them to stop editing the page because its already correct.

Yeah, i agree, with him *points up*, it's always changing so this page will always need editing =P... How comes no one thought to add The Barney Bunch before me? -DeathMoth

im not sure the sections on the clock crew lock legion etc are unbiased, although some seem to spam newgrounds this is not a fact and is a matter of oponion, anyone have any other thoughts? ill admit im not fond of the locks but i cant say there a spamming syndicate and the clock crew (the real clock crew) dont seem to spam

There are a lot of people who hold animosity towards said groups because they believe the whole crew is designed to spam, but these crews are not like myg0t. There are SOME members who spam and extoll the virtues of their clubs a little too much, just like religious activists and anyone who has a strong belief in what they do. They get supported by the crews because the groups work on preserving community and looking out for each other, although this is sometimes undeserved when they mass vote pure spam thanks to an inclusion of the group name, or back up very pious and perhaps bragging praise of said group.
These few people unfortunately cause people to believe that the crews are based entirely around self-aggrandizing and spamming. The crews in fact look down on such members for giving the group a bad name, but their ideal of supporting each other and giving everyone a fair chance to showcase their work sadly lets such people get through and corrupt the groups' public image.
Basically, assume good faith as per Wikipedia policies and judge such groups not by their past, not by their mistakes and not by their few corrupting members, but by the group as a whole, their more recent submissions and the sheer volume of work they've produced.

Why was the Clock Crew article deleted?

Because Wikipedians can't love. Put it on Votes for undeletion and get people to vote it back in if you want it back.

There is an article on Newgrounds in the Swedish Wikipedia too. (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newgrounds)

Perhaps a mention of the Neo Geo would be appropriate? --Mylakovich 00:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since the page is protected due to vandalism, can an administrator do this?

  • Make a link to Clockcrew in this article? (The link should be placed where the reference to Clock Crew is now)
  • Categorize this page under w:Category:Newgrounds which is a new category for all Newgrounds-related articles? This is to organize the growing number of pages related to this topic? (For example, Pico (Newgrounds.com), which I helped clean up but which is still on Votes for deletion).

Thank you. Andrew pmk 02:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The king of the portal is the person who makes the best flashwork(s) of the month

[edit] Maybe some more info on New Ground Remix?

It lives on. You can replace the 4 with a few other numbers, too. Here's Atomix.

[edit] Unprotected

I've unprotected and implemented the new cat and the wikification of Clock Crew -> Clockcrew. Hope those pesky vandals have got bored and wandered off. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] cleanup the timeline

does anyone else think the timeline (especially in 1999) needs to be cleaned up? im gonna try to do that one of these days, but you know.... if anyone could help with that, that would be mucho appreciated --mysekurity 03:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Cleanup

As I proposed earlier, this page is in desperate need of cleanup. Many events on that timeline are not important, and the article itself is way too large for a site such as this. Admittedly, Newgrounds is a very important site, but I doubt any article, based on a website or not, deserves this much information, especially since it is cluttered as-is. This article is in major need of a revamp, and anyone willing to participate will get my full support and assistance. However, the correct answer to the issues this article is facing is not to blank most of it. Some is (very?) important information, and deserves to be kept, such as bits about Alien Hominid, and certain parts of the timeline that are vital to the history of Newgrounds. Conversely, this tabloid-esque approach to the life of Tom is not useful, needed, or necissary. Thank you for reading this, and I hope you decide to pitch in. Thanks again, mysekurity 02:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

i rather agree. if tom fulp is notable then he should have his own page. if not, his personal details need to be taken off this page. if particular flash works are encyclopedic they should be mentioned, but with no justification, their mention looks pretty vain. i think this page could be effective at 1/4 its length. Aaronbrick 19:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

That's, besides links—or lack of, rather—, the first thing I noticed, that being the "timeline" doesn't he have an article? --Ο τύπος στις σκιές 18:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Was Newgrounds the first automated portal?

Well, was it? According to Tom Fulp the creator of the site, it was, as can be seen here: [1]. Although he is far from a neutral source, his claims should be taken in consideration. Personally, I can`t remember any flash portal before Newgrounds and almost certainly it was the first big and sucessful one. Thus, if it is impossible to verife this claim, then at least we should especifie that the creator claims this honour.--Vertigo200 12:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Needs clean up

I do agree that this page is in desperate need of a clean up, but in my opinion it doesn't have enough information. Who says this site has too much info? What about other sites like SomethingAwful and YTMND and its List of fads?

Newgrounds is a great and huge website. Like every other one its size, it deserves a quite long and, of course, neutral article. This article needs a complete rewrite and more info about the crews (or seperate pages for them). Too many "small" groups have put too much info on the groups section and it's been vandalized enormously. --TrashLock 10:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd favour a single page covering all the groups and "crews", and merge any remaining articles into it. Better than having this week's misspelling of some crew's name fighting off a deletion nomination every six months. --Billpg 12:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this is indeed a good idea. I'll see with the persons in charge of writing their crew's history if they believe it's the best way to do it --TrashLock 15:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
List of Newgrounds groups. (Gaps need filling in.) --Billpg 00:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
---
Good work. Also, there's a glaring lack of evidence for the claims regarding the three "unpopular" groups. I used to be a regular at NG, but not so much anymore, and while I know they are "unpopular" (though that term might be a bit POVish), I haven't taken the time to figure out why (other than the fact that they submit "crap"). A claim like that in this article NEEDS to be backed up. The section I'm specifically referring to is this:
With the success of these groups, others were also inspired to create new and better crews of their own. The following is a list of crews which are not dead, but yet are not popular among the majority of Newgrounds users.
  • Barney Bunch (Well known, but infamously)
  • Block Band (Slowly churning out flash movies, but hated by many)
  • Robot Rangers (Similar situation with the Block Band)
Useful links would be threads (important ones, not just someone saying, "OMG THEY SUX0R!!!111") and perhaps a few controversial flash. Someone please fill in that information. I'd do it, but I'm a bit pressed for time.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 04:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2006

[edit] Freddyjrjr

Someone is messing around with the Newgrounds edit page who happens to be spamming and vadalising it with the Freddyjrjr stuff. It's all false and Newgrounds has been around longer than Freddyjrjr. --Number17 15:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King of the Portal?

Can anybody add a section about what exactly the "King of the Portal" title means? I've not seen it explained anywhere, not even on Newgrounds itself, and it's really confusing me. Esn 10:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's fvck newgoundsthe user who gets the most awards in the month, I think. --Bahamut 15:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The King of The Portal is the person that is selected to have the best flashes. Strawberry clock and his gang the clock crew say that he is the forever reigning king, though. The Portal is a place where new flashes created at newgrounds come in. The Portal also shows the best flashes.
The king of the Portal is simply a thing animators constantly call themselves it is no honorary title. The first to use this phrase was strawberry clock. --Trusader

--Ayame The Wolf 19:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Info box

Am I the only one who disagrees with TITROTU's decision to remove the infobox? I think it's more appropriate than 2 pictures. Newgrounds IS a company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TrashLock (talk • contribs) .

If we're counting votes, I prefer the infobox. --Billpg 19:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The main reason I removed it is because it looked too cluttered. I honestly think that it looks better this way. However, if the majority feels that the infobox needs to be put back, by all means go ahead. --TITROTU 4:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do me a favor okay?

Don't remove the essential links that I linked for things like Livecorpse's death, or for CerealBoxClock's death. They're important to that part.

That's all I need, and if you guys keep it up it's going to become a big hassle to deal with.

OI WTF M8 WUT DID AH SAY -Buddhist- 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The affiliates

Does it not seem a little damaging to to say (end of the first paragraph) that the only affiliates listed are a site display graphic gore and a cartoon porn site? Bit biased i think.

--idOcrEatING 09:46, 28 February 2006 (GMT)

Yeah I had a lot of affiliated sites linked up, but people took them down.

  • shrug*

--Buddhist-

[edit] Lots of missing information

I know user turnover at newgrounds is very high and the vast majority don't know the proper history of the site, but there is some very significant information missing from this article:

  • Grounds Gold - The early incarnation of the user system running today
  • Ross Snyder - The guy who created the entire Grounds Gold system and the automated portal is not mentioned anywhere in the article.
  • Development of the portal - Key dates of the development of the portal are missing. The portal was not always automatic.
  • Development of the site - Lots of things like the developmental phases of the site - how the site used to feature only original content, have an entirely flash driven front page. Later the site used frames which was widely unpopular. The second version of the BBS (which is currently being used) etc.

--sebiv 17:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Well Development of the site could technically fall under the timeline, but I suppose we could easily put in a section, i'll get to that sometime.

Ross really gets very little mention in the NG Lit section itself. Although what he did is major, he isn't really remembered that often, only really for the portal. -Buddhist- 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

[edit] Unfiar?

I'm the principal (but not only) author of the Criticism section. This section is occasionly deleted or generally messed with, usually by IP-address users.

I have to admit my experiences are personal, but I do feel that I have been restrained. My own experiences were in 2004, but I've only recently started talked about it, once I found that others had similar stories. I even edited the early revisions in this talk page before moving it into the main page after no-one had commented. Am I being unfair? --Billpg 20:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation-needed-ectomies

Do we have anything verifiable to back up statements made?

Newgrounds no longer distribute 180 Solutions software or similar. 
Have they publically disavowed all present and future relationships with such companies?
Newgrounds transfers 4 to 7 TB daily. 
Do they publish network stats?
Newgrounds is funded only by advertising revenue. 
Are we sure they have no other sources of revenue? (See 28th May 2006 notes below.)
Most or all popups on Newgrounds are blocked when logged into a Grounds Gold Account. 
Is this an advertised feature? If so, it "Most" or "All"?

Any comments? --Billpg 20:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for interupting, but, http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=52849 suggests they're using a 100MBPS line for the majority of the day, even during off peak, simple math suggests if they're using it 90% of the day, its 7.5 TB. That's also as of "2/21/03 08:44 PM," so most likely, it's even higher today, but we do have a post from Tom Wade, the owner, that proves the 7 TB theory. Sorry, I didn't know how to post this! --NeptuneMan 21:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Many thanks. --Billpg 22:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there really any need for the criticism section at all?

It appears that your criticism section, though it does support the existance of the malicious adverts, it doesn't explain the significance of it. It appears that the section was more of an opinion piece to explain your disdain for the site in question and/or for self promotion of your blog. --HowardSF

(I presume this is in reference to the spyware section. If I'm wrong, please correct me and I'll respond again.)
The significance of this is that software was being installed on my (and other's) computers without the consent of the owner. That the software shows advertising is beside the point, IMO. In my own case, I am quite sure that no ActiveX Are-you-sure dialogue was shown, and I included the link Ben Edelman's website to give expert verification that 180 Solutions' software has been observed being installed through browser vulnerabilities.
But I do accept your point, that this not made clear in the main article. (Thank you.) I'll have a think about how this can be re-phrased. In the meantime, if anyone else want's to have a go, please feel free. --Billpg 15:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Self promotion, I don't accept that. (Oooh, there's an unbiased opinion.) The linked to article is relevant to the section and even includes some interesting comments in defense of Newgrounds.
Even if it were an act of self-promotion, it failed. Based on my server logs, readership is down, which I suspect is due to my writers-block.
Nonetheless, Newgrounds and Me is at the end of a list. I imagine many people will just read the first one or two and then move on. --Billpg 15:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is/was some sort of significance to the advertisement, such as a large drop in the amount of site traffic or retalitoratory DDOS attacks on the website, or something similar that would have a significant role in the site, then yes, it would be justified. However, as it stands, the section should just be deleted entirely--both your criticism of their advertising policies, and the hastily posted rebuttal of the criticism. There's no need to have something contentious and disputed in an article if it's not necessary or significant to the subject. HowardSF 00:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

For the spyware section, I must disagree. It covers relevant history of the Newgrounds site. The cited Newgrounds forum posts cover much of 2004 and early 2005, so this doesn't seem like a one-day issue blown out of all proportion.
Actually, if the four posts in question were from a short period of time, it would indicate more of a significance, than four posts scattered out over longer periods of time. In terms of being relevant history, if I looked through the forum on the site, I'm sure I can find 4 topics on just about anything.
The three remaining posts are dated 9th Jan 2004, 15th Aug 2004 and 21st Jan 2005. All three are about Newgrounds itself, not just using the forum to discuss the general subject. --Billpg 21:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, in at least one of the threads you've linked, the spyware/adware the poster presented was/is distributed with AIM (e.g. Viewpoint Media Player).
Well spotted. I've removed the third forum link. Thank you.
This leads me to question the threads themselves; indeed, your blog is the only example given that actually describes spyware being actively transmitted from the site without permission. HowardSF 21:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Ben Edelman and myself have both observed this behaviour. --Billpg 21:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


The pop-up section is (I hope) a just-the-facts coverage of the issue, but it has a lot of citation-needed tags. As yet, no-one has come to verify or dispute them. Is it significant? Not as significant as the spyware section by long chalk, but the central crux of the section, that Newgrounds put both adverts and content inside popup windows, effectively defeating pop-up blockers, remains verifiable.
In all honesty, this part should just be gotten rid of. Unlike spyware or adware, intersitital ads and popups are used by innumerable websites, and are so commonplace that criticism of those on Newgrounds could apply to thousands of other websites just as equally. The Onion, just to name an example of the top of my head, has interstitial ads before you can even access the homepage. Even CNN has interstitial ads before the videos it offers. Unless there's something remarkably unique about Newgrounds's pop-ups and interstitial ads, the criticism should be put into pages on those types of ads. HowardSF 21:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Its not that adverts appear on the intersitial launch page, but that you can only link to that page rather then a page with the embedded content. To actually look at the content, a visitor would need to disable any pop-up blockers. If this practice of requiring pop-up blockers to be disabled is widespread, then I can accept removing this section. IMO, this is kinda small-fry compared to the spyware issue. --Billpg 21:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
(PS, Here's a page with a link to an onion article that does not require me to block pop-ups to read.) --Billpg 23:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping a few more people would chime in after I posted the above "Unfair?" comments a week ago to form some sort of consensus. As yet, you are the first person (that I recall) to actively engage me in discussion regarding this wikipedia section since I first drafted it back in December last year. I was begining to think that no-one really cared. (Thanks.) --Billpg 15:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Wikipedia

"Also, adware, spyware, or other unwanted programs were uploaded to Wikipedia." Huh? How was this done, and what connection does this have to newgrounds?--Dagibit 23:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal:

Due to the fact that the forums and the chat fail under WP:V and WP:WEB, they fall under WP:NOR. Thus, I have removed them unless anyone can proove otherwise.68.192.25.106 15:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lock This Page, Please

I have noticed some people have been putting garbage on the page. Please lock this page from editing until people can maturely come to an agreement.

BurningAfterTheDawn 00:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Criticism section wrongly accuses Newgrouds

I am tired of people accusing NEWGROUNDS for all the "Zango" stuff and other spyware they may get. Firstly, that Zango screenshot was probably taken on a computer that already had spyware. Secondly, Newgrounds does not have "full control" of the ads, as they just let their sponsors add some code. Please, stop the madness. Clean up your computer using Ad-Aware and Spybot S&D, then go back to Newgrounds...you'll see it doesn't prompt you for anything.--TrashLock 13:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

According to McAfee's Site Advisor[2], Newgrounds appears to still be carrying Zango. As for not having full control, they do have the ability to pull an advertiser. Have they kept an advertiser in knowledge that said advertiser is doing this? I dunno.
Anyway, the Zango line and screenshot did not come from me. I'm personally more concerned with the drive-by installs. --Billpg 20:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Should this addition be taken out/changed? "Besides ratings, reviewers also supply either praise, helpful information, criticism, or an abusive rant that often makes the reviewer look like a fool. Certain rules have been set up to stop the spread of abusive reviews, but are usally not taken into consideration by the reviewers."

Should there also be a mention of the massive audio portal that newgrounds offers? A lot is missing from the criticism section...much of that isnt relevant. Instead of the spyware, more emphasis should be put on the contraversal material that newgrounds has hosted for years.--JordanNguyen 20:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to write a section about such material, don't let me stop you. --Billpg 21:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 28th May 2006 edits to Cirticism section

I've added a statement that Newgrounds have since changed advertising agencies. My only source is the second comment placed (anonymously) in my Newgrounds and Me article. [3] This seems a fairly uncontrovertial statement which would be better backed up by some sort of officical announcement on the NG site itself. Does anyone have one?

An edit was also made today (by 81.101.58.1) removing a cite-tag, with the HTML comment that "Everything doesn't need a citation, it's common sense that advertising revenue pays for the content!". That is a very fair point. I've removed the word "only" from the original statement that Newgrounds is only funded by advertising revenue. Where other funding may or may not come from is not really interesting.

I have, however, restored the cite-tags to the 4-7 TB statistic and the note regarding Grounds Gold members. If this information is public knowledge, there should be something the article can point to. These statements provide balance to this section, so I think it is worthwhile keeping them in. --Billpg 22:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 25th June 2006 - Siteadvisor image

Since the siteadvisor image has been removed, I've added a link to the siteadvisor report on Newgrounds. If this rating ever changes, IMO, the link should removed from the list, perhaps to be replaced with a statement along the lines of "During (Month) (Year), SiteAdvisor revisied its rating from Red to (NewRating)." --Billpg 13:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stickers

The "stickers" section was removed because it had no useful purpose other than to plug Newgrounds stickers.


[edit] Talented? not a biased word

In the begenning part of the article it's written "Tom is currently joined by a talented staff consisting of". Saying that they are talented is only an opinion not a fact, I haven't removed it so if anyone that is actually keeping an eye on this article and agrees with me please make the correction. --Dee' 12:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am removing it.--Jersey Devil 19:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location, Location, Location!

Isn't Newgrounds based out of Philadelphia and not California? Tom Fulp has done some recent work on Alien Hominid in San Diego, but I can't remember ever reading anything about Oakland in the years I've been at the site.

Response: I edited the page to reflect that they are headquartered in Perkasie, as this is city in the address of Newgrounds.

[edit] Removal of spyware

(I've only just spotted this. Sorry for taking so long to respond. --Billpg 14:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

Out of the large number of page views and visitors, maybe 10-20 people, total, at most over a year and a half have complained or noted the spyware issue. That is under no circumstances significant enough to warrant the inclusion in this article. --HowardSF 23:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
When it happened to me, I had only visted three websites that day, and I could quickly eliminate the other two. Even then, I didn't start talking about it until I was sure of myself, having seen reports from others. Others might not have been so sure of the source.
Regardless of this, it happened, even if it only happened to a few. --Billpg 14:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
No one is suggesting to the contrary. The contention is that the few that it happened to and noted it are so small in number to be insigificant. Again, with over 1 million users, 10 or 20 users is a minute fraction of one percent--hardly significant by any measure. --HowardSF 03:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, many of the sources fail to meet the criteria of WP:V (and WP:Vanity)--there is no method of verifing the third hand accounts of the forum post examples. --HowardSF 23:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
From the begining, I used words to the effect of "Complaints were made that..." and then quoted examples. This remains significant, people have been sent to prison on the basis of testimony alone. --Billpg 14:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Even if the posts were verifiable, this would still remain irrelevant to the insignificance of the section as a whole. --HowardSF 03:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


I reiterate my previous point-- 3 forum topics out of well over 400,000 is in no way significant. Unless one can show how those ads were significant to the site in some tangible matter, as in a loss of traffic, a loss of membership, etc.,--something that would have a indesputable effect on the website, then the section should be removed.--HowardSF 23:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The act alone is (IMO) significant and worthy of comment. --Billpg 14:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It may have been a signficant event for you, but it is not a significant event for the subject of the article. Again, I'll reiterate: it is only significant if it had a notable, tangible impact to the subject. No one has been able to demonstrate that, therefore it is insignificant and not needed in the article. With the lack of demonstration on such an impact on the site, I become increasingly inclined to believe that this section was created as self-promotion for your blog, and as a use to broadcast your personal criticism of the subject. Any criticism section for any subject should list widely-held criticisms, or criticisms that influence the subject. For example, a criticism section for Wal*Mart would list such criticisms as its attitudes towards employees, its attitude towards competitors and mom and pops, etc. It would not include a complaint that a specific person has against a store, even if there were a few others that had similar complaints.--HowardSF 03:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi Protection?

I believe this page should be semi protected, seeing as there has been several cases of vandalism by Newgrounds users themselves, mainly those without accounts or made one to spam, any thoughts? http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=525000

Request has been put in to have this page semi-protected, we're waiting on admin to judge --Canadian-Bacon 18:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Syndicate

The star Syndicate day is not commonly Celebrated, so i removed it, the SS-DT 2 day is more well known and used.

The Star Syndicate Died, there next flash is there last


· You were had. That was just a publicity stunt. The Star Syndicate is still active on Newgrounds 86.18.244.141 15:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BBS in need of it's own article?

well i've been searching around the BBS and i think it's big enouph for it's own article it has thousands of users and it's own awards/trends and is very heavely linked with the admins and is the main way for the NG community to communicate and it's a very big community. what are your thoughts? CartoonDiablo 13:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)cartoondiablo

Take the survey should the main article be re-created, stay deleted or be merged with newgrounds

The BBS section should be significantly smaller (see reasoning below), and the notable users and inside lingo sections should be removed, consistent with WP:V, WP:WEB, and WP:NOR.I'll not take action on the BBS section, other than to clean up and remove grammatical and spelling errors, until the vote is completed. However, I will remove the notable users and inside lingo section in consistent with the aforementioned policies. Moreover, the image of "Bedn"; has an inappropriate license. [User:HowardSF|HowardSF]] 04:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

survey deadline September 25

  • Stay deleted.As 68.192.25.106 explained months ago, the chat and forums fall under WP:V and WP:WEB, and WP:NOR, so they shouldn't be in the article except as a brief mention, let alone a full, stand-alone article. Also, note that your recreation of the article lead to speedy deletion. For more info, see your talk page.--HowardSF 04:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daily Collections should not go here

The Daily Collections part of this page should be removed. They are not a major part of Newgrounds. In fact, they are just the submissions of one flash artist out of hundreds that submit to Newgrounds. They have won little rewards and have received little attention on Newgrounds itself, and their reference here is not appropriate.

[edit] Use real names

We need to use real names in this article, not nicknames. Who is liljim? Using their online nicknames is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. I can probably find out their real names if I want to. Want me to?

Well stamper is Will Stamper I forget what liljim was and it never mentioned who ross was. CartoonDiablo 13:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)CartoonDiablo

Ross is Ross Snyder.

[edit] References and cleanup

I am interested in doing what I can to get the tags removed from this article. Right now, there are tags for references and cleanup.


The actually address of the NG HQ is in Glendale, Pennsylvania whatever vaule that may be.

References -- is there something that I am missing? We ought to be able to take the website's own word when it comes to how many users and submissions they have and to who has sued them. However, we could also say something like "by the website's account" if we want to be extremely picky, although I feel that this is not necessary.

Cleanup -- I have fixed many typos among other stuff. Something else in particular needs cleanup?

The article has no citations that are outside of the website itself. While we CAN cite the website, this is not optimal. The article is crufty to an extreme (Portal awards, Front page Icons, Site mascots have little relevence outside of the sites community).JBKramer 19:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

well "technicly" things such as forum respons are primary sources seeing as they are a first hand experence of what happened. 68.38.69.72 00:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)CartoonDiablo

No, "technicly" they're not. Read WP:REF. Mackan 06:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I have moved all 2005 articles to archive so that this disussion page confroms to wikipedia size limits. Kc4 05:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Day?

Hey, does anyone know when Star Day USED to be celebrated? You don't need to add this info. And who deleted all the info that used to be here?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/w/Talk%7ENewgrounds_Archive1_f6b8.html"