Talk:Real Social Dynamics/Archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Links to Fast Seduction Site
So to try and provide some pro and anti feedback, I've added a bunch of links to reviews on FastSeduction. This is going to be mildly controversial, but in two different ways.
If you're not a member of the Seduction Community, please understand that FastSeduction hosts mASF - you can find out more at the wikipedia page alt.seduction.fast - which is THE major discussion board in the community (by a very large margin), and the only one to which all the 'big names' post. This is virtually undisputed (although there's some anonymous guy who keeps vandalizing the seduction community pages claiming otherwise) - I would guess that the other two editors who are spending any amount of time on these pages (User:DutchSeduction, User:SecondSight) would agree.
User:DutchSeduction - I know you've argued against linking to FS.com on one occasion, but I think that was because it was in contest with a link you'd added. The actual pages linked to contain no advertising what-so-ever, so we're hardly supporting the site.
FastSeduction.com is the second hit on Google for 'seduction', and has an Alexa rank of 9,537, so it's not as if it's going to make a big difference to the amount of traffic the site receives - add a comment if you disagree.
PS: If you're wondering how I picked the reviews - they were simply the last six from today. WoodenBuddha 10:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
DutchSeduction Writes: "Of course you are supporting the site by favoring and including it in every single Seduction Community -related WP page. This drives traffic to their site, increases subscriptions and better revenue for Learn The Skills Corp, the corporate owners of that site. Suggest removing adcruft and keeping references to them as modest as possible. There have been Seduction Community -related pages deleted via the RfD for exactly this reason."
(PS: DutchSeduction - it's really really easy to sign your comments. Simply insert four tildas after your name. That way other people can see what you've written, and what other people have written, rather than inserting what appear to be nonsense paragraphs in the middle! You can find out more on the Wikipedia beginners pages WoodenBuddha 12:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC))
WoodenBuddha, every one of my comments has been signed. Please stop trolling/flaming. About links to FastSeduction.com, wake up an pay attention to what I'm saying: Okay to add a link or two, but let's stop shamelessly promoting the various commercial sites. DutchSeduction 01:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy Deletion Rebuttal
As you can see from the page itself, this article is one of a series. I created this new page - if you look at my contributions, you'll see I've been very active in trying to grow and maintain the Seduction Community pages, and have worked on most of the related pages. So from this angle, I'd like to make a case that the page isn't spam - I'd say I'm pretty believably not working for Real Social Dynamics, given the amount of work I've put in to growing their competitors pages!
The article is, however, a crap stub. Give me a little while to build it up with help from the other editors. Cheers!
WoodenBuddha 12:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed the speedy tag. Googling returns a substantial (thousands) number of hits, and alexa.com finds them to be in the top 50,000 sites. It's enough to contest speedy deletion. But, this might be a candidate for deletion anyways. If someone thinks so, they should take it to AfD and not speedy. --Durin 12:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
What part of "repost" did you miss? --Calton | Talk 13:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is in user space or undeleted per the undeletion policy." - This appears to me to be reasonably expanded compared to the original, and it seems conceptually bizzare that a referenced article can be deleted because its original iteration was a one-line stub. Feel free to AFD it, though. Shimgray | talk | 13:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Concur with Shimgray. This iteration of the content is substantially different than what was previously deleted. Yes, I checked. Simply because something was previously deleted does not mean that all future incarnations of it are not allowed. If you feel that it should be deleted, then please place it at WP:AFD. --Durin 13:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm not sure why this article was nominated for deletion again on the basis of a repost when two users already said that it was not a repost. Because the user proposing speedy deletion provided no counter arguments to those users, I am removing the notice. Any user who has a problem with this page should instead put it on AfD, where it can get a fair trial. Also, both the user who created the page and I have said that we will improve the page. --SecondSight 03:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I might add that the two users who had already pointed out it wasn't a repost are administrators, and as such probably have a better idea of the rules than myself, SecondSight, or this Calton fellow. WoodenBuddha 09:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Citations
Despite the fact I wrote it, I feel this article is a little unfairly negative at the moment, and I think my citation to 'one of the best PUAs' is a weak one - it just points at alt.seduction.fast. As a community member, I know it's true tho :-) Any other community members there want to pick up the slack and find some pro-RSD commentary? I think we should at least aim for balance here. I think we can probably find more news articles - I feel a little uncomfortable just linking to their news page, and more uncomfortable too linking to one of their competitors news pages where they get (an albeit pretty negative) mention. Let's flesh this out! :)
WoodenBuddha 14:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll look around for some references when I get around to it. You could always link to positive RSD reviews posted in the mASF reviews forum. --SecondSight 01:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WoodenBuddha's Commercial POV
We've had this discussion back and forth before. Please stop adding promotional POV adcruft for sites like FastSeduction. The site is massively $ucce$$ful without the Internet marketing. DutchSeduction 12:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edits by 70.209.249.128
Whoever is editing under 70.209.249.128 seems to have pasted information directly from RSD's website into this page. This is a blatant abuse of Wikipedia, because the point of wikipedia is to provide information from a neutral point of view (see the policy Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, not to act as an advertisement for companies. 70.209.249.128 has also been spamming various community related pages with links to RSD's website, even though those pages already has the "Notable Members of the Seduction Community" template, which links to the RSD article. I have removed the sections that were pasted directly from RSD's website, except for part of the section on Tyler Durden, which I rephrased to make NPOV, to show 70.209.249.128 an example of how it is done. I also left in TD's mASF posts, because I think they are relevant. I reinstated the criticism section, which 70.209.249.128 deleted (have you no shame??). I encourage 70.209.249.128 and others to continue to expand this page within Wikipedias guidelines; some of the information on RSD site about the company and instructors could be included IF it was phrased in a NPOV way. --SecondSight 03:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
70.209.249.128, see my message on your talk page: User talk:70.209.249.128. --SecondSight 03:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth - I added links to the original TD posts - I think they're important. You seem to have done a good job tidying up from this - will keep an eye on it myself to make sure we don't get people adding erroneous links. WoodenBuddha 23:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've just completely reverted back to the original article. None of the vandal's edits are worth keeping. This is back to the last revert before that guy started editing. You're always going to get guys in the community like Ray Gordon or Moonwalker or stRiPPed who are devoted to fucking up page :( Hope this goes away soon! WoodenBuddha 23:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism by 70.219.185.253
Yet again someone has blanked out the whole article and replaced it with advertising from RSD's website. This is vandalism. I suspect that 70.219.185.253 is the same person above who did something very similar, and both IP addresses are similar. I am also beginning to suspect that whoever it is has some kind of affiliation with the company. I've worked very hard to get seduction community-related pages up on wikipedia, and I'm not going to let you ruin it by turning it into an advertisement, because that reflects badly on the rest of the seduction community pages, and puts them, and this page, at risk of deletion. If I see ONE more example of editing like this, I will report the IP addresses of those involved to an admin, and/or I will consider nominating this article for deletion, if someone else doesn't beat me to it (though I really don't want to do that, because I think this is a valuable article and I supported its creation). --SecondSight 21:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, someone has repeated these edits from another IP address: 86.142.159.63. Question: do we want to try to get the page protected? Or do we want to put the entire article up for deletion (I'm leaning toward protection if it becomes necessary, but deletion should also be considered)? --SecondSight 23:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm dead-against deletion. What we have now is good, relevant information - deleting them would just be punishing them, which, while satisfying, doesn't make the Wiki better. If it happens again, let's try and get it protected. WoodenBuddha 07:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- You're right. Especially because we don't actually know if it really is someone from RSD trying to promote themselves, or just some random person in the RSD fan club. Maybe he will go away soon if we keep reverting him. If it happens once or twice more, we can just get the page protected. --SecondSight 07:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism section
I reverted the article, which removed some additions to the criticisms section. The problem was that these criticisms were not properly substantiated with links (just linking to thundercat's is not enough). I have no trouble believing those criticisms, though! They can be added back in with references substantiating them. --SecondSight 21:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jokes
There was a sentence mentioning that jokes have been made at the quality of RSD's methods which has been removed. Should that sentence stay out? I am not going to add it back in personally, because it might make the article sound POV in a negative manner. --SecondSight 00:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy with that being removed - it's a bit of a weak point. There have been 'jokes' made about everyone - I think the rest of the crit part is accurate and fairly well balanced.... WoodenBuddha 00:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Refund policy and good/bad reviews
Just added a bit on their refund policy and good/bad reviews. Would be nice if someone could find some extra citations and spell/grammer checked me. Thanks.
