Talk:Bash.org/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


I've deleted the [[]]s around Not suitable for children, as this is the only link on Wikipedia to the phrase, and it's twice been turned into a page of spam. Sysops can view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Not_suitable_for_children for the twice barraging of this page with junk. Please, no one change these words back to a link. -- user:zanimum

I don't really think the phrase is suitable for our article anyway - people have to decide for themselves whether bash is suitable for children or not (which they can do quite easily using the info we give about sexual references, language and so on). It's not for us to say what is and isn't OK for kids, so I'm taking that bit out. --Camembert

I notice that the link under Bash's changes a lot. Exactly how many forks are out there, and can we please make a page listing them all, rather than swapping them out all the time on the main Bash.org article? --Desplesda 02:06, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is only one fork, but it keeps changing its name, from bash.cx to phrise.com to qdb.us. -- TRS-80 17:00, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

bash.org moderators go on strike. Some quotes are getting through, but the pending queue is up to 11000 -- TRS-80 17:00, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That link is long dead :( I think they pulled it after they got new jobs at qdb.us Bash.org is regrettibly a thing of the past now. There are very few experainced moderators, and the pending list is longer then the actual database. Long list + Newb Mods = Goodbye


Bash.org is immensely popular among Internet users, so much so that the site's maintainers intermittently send out requests for new hardware to be donated (which often occurs).

This is actually misleading. Such a request only happened once back in 2001 when the Geekissues QDB switched over to Bash.org. After that, hardware and bandwidth has been freely donated, but not through request. Additionally, bash.org is not "spin-off" of the previous QDB location at geekissues. Bash.org houses the same original database and code. For years there was only one QDB, and that was bash, since geekissues closed down and moved to bash. How does that make bash a spin-off? It doesn't. Please stop editing this wikipedia entry with false information.

Contents

'IRC' Quote Database?

Why is it refered to as the IRC Quote Database? It's always been the 'Geek Quote Database' or more simply the 'Quote Database' as far as I've ever seen.

Summary of conflict

This is getting huge. Since probably nobody except me and Josh care about this, here's a summary. HTH. CXI 14:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  1. Blaxthos, an administrator of bash.org, began removing sections of the article, including history and external links.
  2. After being reverted numerous times and warned on his talk page, he stopped.
  3. 24.170.50.17, aka "josh at bash dot org", removed smaller sections of the history and article content, as well as external links.
  4. The page was then protected by Jdforrester.

  5. Discussion then began, with josh's main arguments being as follows:
    • The fork of bash.org called QDB.us does not merit inclusion, as it is "not related in any way to Bash.org"
    • External links to clones of bash.org should not be included because they are similarly not related and "exist merely to advertise"

  6. Counter-arguments made by CXI were:
    • QDB.us was created by "many of bash's original founders"
    • The moderator strike that casued the creation of bash.org was published on its main page
    • The page for slashdot has a link to sites running slashcode and tetris has a link to clones of that game

  7. Josh's reply:
    • "[QDB.us] was made by ZERO bash founders. The only relationship it has is in its subject matter."
    • "The mod strike didn't cause the creation of QDB.us"
    • Tetris is not "a specific website or product", whereas "bash.org is a specific website"
    • There should be a QDB wikipedia entry, where other clones are listed
    • The article would be better served by being modified by "the people who actually are tightly affiliated with bash.org"

  8. utopianfiat, a moderator of QDB.us, posted a list of factors he considered necessary for the unprotection of the page:
    1. "bash clarified not to be 'spin-off'"
    2. "hardware donation occurred once, not frequently"
    3. "advertisement for other qdbs doesn't belong on the bash page"
    4. "acknowledge qdb.us's relation to bash.org's accurately"

  9. CXI interviewed "DigDug", the creator of the site, to find out the following:
    • DigDug created the original database of quotes in a plain HTML file at digdug.cx.
    • This was then updated to a PHP site and simultaneously existed on geekissues.org.
    • DigDug handed the project over to Guilty and Madog, who moved it to bash.org.
    • DigDug later asked to rejoin the project, but was denied, so he took his copy of the code to bash.cx, later phrise.com, later qdb.us.
    • Due to difficulties with management, many of the moderators went on strike. They were then fired and moved to QDB.us.

  10. CXI then rewrote the article including these facts and generally refactoring it, putting it at Bash.org/Draft
    • Josh calls the draft "exponentially more bad than the original post"
    • Mo0 says it "provides a rather well-written, and more thorough, outline of the site and its history than it did before"

  11. Josh says:
    • "QDB.us may need to exist in the Bash.org article, but not as an external link"
    • The IRC handles should be removed
    • "this 'madog' person left years and years ago to be replaced by 'blaxthos'."
    • The draft is biased because it "was put together primarily from the position and memory of DigDug"
    • Regarding the clone of bash.org: "you can't expect to list every project inspired by a site on that site's entry. Likewise, you can't selectively choose which to list."
    • "some of these 'facts' just seem to be arbitrarily thrown in" and should be changed to avoid weasel terms

  12. CXI replies:
    • "If [QDB.us is] referenced in the main article it really needs an external link"
    • "I've included [bash.org clones] (well, one) because it's relevant" and "because it seems to be the only notable one"
    • Handles look unprofessional, but the alternative is removing them, in which case people will not know who created the site
    • Weasel terms can't be avoided "when there are many people who hold a particular view but none of them are notable enough to bear individual mention", and one citation was included anyway
    • "You, Josh, are a mod of bash.org", and that "may affect your editing"
    • "There's a difference between using information written by someone who's involved with that site and being involved with the site yourself"

  13. Josh replies:
    • "Yahoo et al are all mentioned in the google entry and don't have an external link"
    • "The alternative to handles is not to use your draft."
    • "I'm not a mod of bash", but "I've been involved in the history of BOTH QDBs and all that was before them"
    • QDB.us shouldn't be included because "what the mods did or did not do after is not really important"
    • The quote backing up the "weasel word" opinion is non-notable: "do I know or care what quote is "amply mocking" someones stereotype of bash?
    • The draft is biased because "you got your bash.org draft history from primarily one source"

  14. CXI replies:
    • "I've already given you the rationale for including QDB.us"
    • "I've already said RQMS was included on the basis of notability"
    • "I've already told you the problem with not including names in the History. 'The altnernative to handles is not to use your draft' doesn't change that."
    • "I've already mentioned that using an intrinsically POV source doesn't necessarily violate NPOV."
    • "I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by saying that the quote backing up the opinion isn't notable."
    • "Saying you're not closely involved with both projects rather than just one doesn't mean you're any less biased."
    • "You've given a lot of problems but never solutions, and that's not really helping anyone."
    • "it's become increasingly obvious that this argument isn't going anywhere"

  15. Entry is posted on WP:RFC
  16. DigDug comments:
    • "Not only am I heavily biased, but I did not have the time to give all the information on what happened."
    • "a lot of what happened is kind of personal, and not my proudest moments -- ones that I'd rather not share on Wikipedia"
    • "I'd like for QDB.us to stay as a fork of the original project, but I don't think it should be up to me to decide"

Continued

CXI. Read up a bit to see DigDug's reply... the one where he agrees with me. Then, consider the positions in play.

The first position is from you, CXI, and you're just some really random internet guy who has this weird obsession with the QDBs and pushing your own version of the draft. Not only was the new draft not needed (since everything had been resolved before your reply), but the content is just silly. I've already pointed out many problems with the history, and you still insist on defending things that the majority of the users in this discussion thread have already agreed to do away with. I think it's ridiculous to try and pass off my long winded replies to every point you make as me not paying attention to your posts. It's also wrong to assume everyone here has a hot head and is up in arms, so don't try to appear as the cool headed mediator. It's not needed, and the references are not appreciated.

The second opinion comes from me, someone not in direct affiliation with any of the bash.org operations, nor the qdb.us operations, but just someone who was around to witness all of it taking shape from start to finish to new site start to new site name change to other new site, etc, etc. I'm more informed, my versions of history are not warped, and I've already made numerous factual corrections to the previous article and even your draft, which you have confirmed.

There are a number of generic opinions in here that don't give way to one side or the other, just serve to say "keep the peace" and whatnot.

The third comes from utopian, who after his post set down a numbered list of things to change with the current article to make everyone happy. I agreed to it. Tada, that would have been the end of the discussion, with the latest version of bash being edited to include some of your changes and fix some of the information in it. No need for a new draft, no need for any more additional paragraphs.

The fourth comes from Mo0, and I'm still really trying to figure out his arguments or what discussion he's reading.

The fifth comes from DigDug, who you know, CXI, as the creator of qdb.us/geekissues/etc. Even though he was the primary source of information for your new draft on bash.org, somehow he agrees with me. Of course he'd enjoy the link to qdb.us on bash, but he understands that it might not be appropriate.

I'll make a quick reply to your latest post, as not only do you seem to have not paid attention to most of my arguments, but you've also chosen to ignore the majority opinion and position and the earlier resolution of this debate.

  • I said I can see how you'd want to link qdb.us. DigDug also says that. But it's just not necessary, and it would be much more appropriate to have a QuoteWebsites wp entry where all of whatever history and sites can be put.
  • RASH is a clone of the QDB. Should we put it on the geekissues wp entry? The qdb.us wp entry? If the only clone that existed only had 10 hits on google, would you still list it simply because it's the most notable clone? Why isn't Booble linked on the Google entry? The names are so similar, and they even had a similar design. Heck, didn't google sue them, too? Why aren't they in the history? If there's a wp entry for SearchEngines, Booble should be there. If there's a wp entry for Booble, it should be noted it was inspired by Google. Likewise, there should be a QuoteWebsites wp entry where RASH should be listed cited as an open-source clone of bash.org.
  • "The alternative to handles is not to use your draft" actually does solve the problem about using names, because, the previous version didn't actually use names, and no one had a problem with this. Your draft uses names, and I think it's silly, you also said it's silly, and DigDug doesn't agree with being listed so personal like that. How does that not totally end your assumption that there absolutely needs to be monikers listed?
  • All sources are biased, yep, and I've been trying to institute fact from article bias. I've made factual corrections to your draft and to the original article, and you recognize this.
  • Here's the problem with your argument: you assume that there HAS to be a mention of that stereotype you mentioned, and you assume there HAS to be an external link to a quote that reaffirms that position, and you assume there HAS to be text after to explain the position using the word "nigger." I disagree and think that it's inappropriate. Why can't we say "some users absolutely love the quote database and submit absolutely everything they say in a channel," then back it up with 30 quotes supporting that position? Why not step away from making either positive or negative stereotypes about the site and just leave it out? I'm just failing to see this absolute anchor idea of putting a negative stereotype into the article, linking a quote to support it, and then making sure readers know what you're talking about by saying "nigger." Maybe I'm dumb, I don't know.
  • Apology accepted.
  • I can't even believe you said this. What have I been campaigning for in just about EVERY paragraph I write? I've been offering solutions left and right, and to deny that is to admit you aren't even reading my posts. I am literally OVERFLOWING with solutions in EVERY single post I write, yet somehow all I am doing is offering "problems but never solutions." My opinion is different from yours, get over it and stop making my solutions out to be problems when the majority agrees with me and not with you.

Please, please, please people, read what I'm writing. If it's not obvious by now, here are my solutions I've been proposing. You'll notice THESE ARE WHAT WERE (mostly) ALREADY AGREED way, way up in this article:

1. Bash isn't a spin-off (factual inaccuracy #1)

2. Hardware donation occurred once, not frequently (factual inaccuracy #2)

3. Advertisements for other QDBs and spin-offs doesn't belong on the bash.org page, should be moved to an independent entry on QuoteWebsites (which this article should link to as See Also). This practice shouldn't be selective.

4. The strike happened, the mods left, the queue on bash is high. We don't need to say where the mods did or didn't go, since that is irrelevant to Bash.org; what's relevant to bash is that they left, which caused the queue to soar. The mods leaving is relevant to QDB.us and should be in the QDB.us wp entry, where it most certainly won't be contested.

5. Just make the changes to the original article. It's not a big deal.

6. RESTATED FOR EMPHASIS: Change the wikipedia QDB redirect to a QuoteWebsites wikipedia entry that lists whatever quote websites you think need to be listed. List swedish ones, list rash, list qdb.us, list bash. There are enough out there now that there needs to be a central point to all of them so they're not fighting to be listed on the bash entry.

I'm probably forgetting a few, but all of that is what is important currently. Those are just two of the 4 or 5 factual inaccuracies I've noted, so no, I haven't just submitted "one." Again, seriously, don't just scan my words and come to crazy conclusions, then reply with some attempt at discrediting me. Also, let's stick all of the previous crap in a Talk2 article or something so this one doesn't suck up 10mb. 24.170.50.17 -Josho, voice of reason

I told you I'm not going to argue.
1. solved in the draft
2. solved in the draft
3. disputed
4. solved as originally stated by utopianfiat, disputed in your version
Would you mind working out when Madog left and when he was replaced by Blax wrt other events on the history page? Thanks. CXI 09:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You're obviously the bigger man. Props, ese. Not like you could argue with what I said anyway.
Your draft sucks. There's is and never was any reason to go and make a whole new page. I know you want to be the hero, but just let it go. We can make 2-3 edits to the current document without having to use your work of bias.
I seriously do not understand your commitment to getting your draft as the new version. It's really unusual. I know you're trying to really get the word out on other wp entries and really want your work up there, but just stop, dude. Make the changes to the existing version, not your new and excessive entry. If you want to feel special or something, I'll give you a really pretty "Super Student!" sticker you can put on your trapper keeper. Maybe some rainbow shoelaces for your LA Lights.
Seriously though, you're going against the grain of the majority and the people behind the two sites to selfishly publish your own version that basically ignores everything in this discussion thread. You, being the more mature man, should recognize the wishes of the two people whose sites are in conflict in this article and just back off, not continue this crusade to publish your own works. But what do I know, I apparently ramble about sunshine and unicorns in all of my posts and make no sense and make no good arguments. 24.170.50.17 -Josho, patron of the gods
At this poiint, you're all talk and no action. All you've done so far is sidestep arguments, be insulting towards those who are trying to help this article, and basically spewing words without trying to actually DO anything. Go to Bash.org/Draft2, and make the edits that you seem to think will make this article better; if it's seen in action, maybe we'll come around; at this moment, though, you're listing ideas and expecting someone else to implement them. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 16:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
At this point, you have ADHD and are bipolar, so I automatically assume you are incapable of paying attention. Just kidding with you, you're an okay guy.
There doesn't need to be any "action" right now. The only action that needs to happen is this discussion. Why do you think there HAS to be some sort of new draft before we even know what to put in it? Where's the fire here? What's the emergency?
The point of having the DISCUSSION is so you can DISCUSS what everyone thinks should happen. You listen to arguments, you get a consensus, and you make the changes in good faith. I'm listing my opinions and my ideas so they can be argued, agreed with, disagreed with, etc, because, well, that's what you DO.
Has the debating group decided what changes need to occur? Well, yes, if you see wayyyyy up in the article, there was some sort of consensus. Has there been a decision to create a whole new draft, let alone implement it? No. Should I create a new draft? No, since what should be in the draft is still under DISCUSSION. Should I create a new draft because you say so? No, I've been advocating just making slight changes to the original document. Changes that are in the history of the document and you can see for yourself.
At this moment, though, I'm engaged in a debate on what should be in the article, because that's the whole point. I can't really make those changes because there's not a majority opinion (assuming CXI is worth something; this factor is in dispute) to say which changes to make. Have I listed the changes I propose to make? Yes. Should I make a whole new wp entry with the changes actually listed visibly so you don't have to follow the conversation and actually read what I list as the proposed changes? No. I'm listing ideas and expecting there to eventually be a consensus to the changes that people agree on can actually be implemented. I have patience and I'm not concerned with jumping the gun to create a whole new draft. 24.170.50.17 -Josho, bodybuilder extraordinaire
The reason I offered this to you is so you could provide an alternative; as of right now, I hardly see much of a consensus, and really the only way to get this discussion to evolve from the "You're wrong, I'm right" back-and-forth that's going on is to provide 2, or possible even 3, different versions of the article to compare. That'll get us farther than the "discussion" that's going on here, which admittedly is going nowhere. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 18:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you read my post above, I've been providing alternatives. Alternatives were provided and agreed upon at the start of this discussion. I'm sorry this discussion isn't wrapping up overnight like you'd hoped, but that's not my fault. It was over and done with before CXI chimed in to offer up a biased new draft. See the opinions posted throughout this article from the people who really matter to find out what position to have.
If you want the new draft version, so be it, I'll flip through the history of the original article and find it for you in a while. 24.170.50.17 -Josho, wheelbarrow specialist
I was never of the expectation that this debate would finish in a day, but I don't see it finishing until March if multiple alternatives are not provided. I'm willing to compromise if necessary, but as of right now all I've seen is you telling us what needs to be done; I'm the kind of person who'd rather see it in action, and that's why I'm asking you to provide some sort of example of what you want. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 19:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Right, I'm not telling anyone to do anything, I'm doing this thing called saying my opinion. If you're the kind of person who'd rather see it in action, then read what I'm writing. Read my examples. I'm pretty much done talking to Mo0 the wall. Try really hard this time before responding. 24.170.50.17 -Josho, heartless savage
You don't have to be a jerk about it. I was simply providing a chance for you to show your version of the article, since in all honesty, that'd be much easier for someone coming into this debate to see where the argument is. However, between your constant avoidance of making your own version of the article, which WILL be necessary for the dispute to be resolved, and CXI apparently ignoring that I've been following this debate, I'm gonna say adieu, and let you guys fight it out. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 15:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History and external link discussion

Since this Wikipedia entry is about Bash.org, I think the history and external link sections need to be reworked a bit.

The site started out as a plain-HTML file of IRC quotes at digdug.cx/quotes.html, and was then moved into a PHP/MySQL site that allowed public submissions. Due to flooding, a moderation system was quickly set up, and the site then moved to GeekIssues.org. In 2002, the site changed owners and moved to bash.org. In 2003, the original founder of the site set up a separate fork, which now resides at QDB.us

The last sentence has nothing to do with Bash.org. The separate fork is a separate project created after the establishment of Bash.org and is not related in any way to Bash.org, save for its existence as another source for IRC quotes. It is not, however, a part of Bash.org's history or current state, and should not be included.

Likewise, external links to other sources for IRC quotes should not be included on the Wikipedia entry for Bash.org. If they are similar in nature, there should be an additional entry created for QuoteWebsites where they can be more appropriately listed. Advertising other similar sites on an entry specific to the website Bash.org is not correct. Check out the Wikipedia entry for Google and you will find no external links to A9, MSN, Teoma, or anything else. The links to similar search engines are provided as links to Wikipedia entries, and each has a specific purpose in the Google text. The external links for Bash.org are in no way related to Bash.org, serve no purpose in any of the text, and exist to simply advertise. (24.170.50.17, who did not sign)

I have trouble understanding how the origin of bash.org has nothing to do with this article. The separate fork was made by many of bash's original founders. Your assertion that "it is not related in any way to bash.org" is ridiculous, as qdb.us was created as a result of the moderator strike published on the main page of bash.org. This might be just my opinion, but when many of the original moderators and founders of the geekissues qdb split from bash.org over differences with its current owner and create their own site, that seems pretty relevant to bash.org's history. I noticed you also deleted details of the moderator strike from the history. Did that not happen?
Your wholesale removal of related external links is unfounded as well. Granted, there are no external links to Yahoo or MSN search on the Google page, but neither Yahoo nor MSN search is based on Google code. If it was, there would most likely be links to those pages. The entry for Slashdot has a link to pages running Slashcode, which shows an actual precedent for this sort of thing anyway. See also game articles like Tetris which invariably include links to clones. Regardless, if you think that this should all go under one giant QDB page, then go do it. Don't just randomly delete things.
Finally, removing half of the article is not a minor edit. Do not mark it as such. I would assume this was simply a new user mistake except that the edit summary also says "minor changes". I'm not going to revert you, despite your changes being decidedly trollish, as I've no desire to start or continue an edit war. However, you're screwing up this article. CXI 01:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


CXI, not only did I create #geekissues, but I've been with the QDB since years before it started out of the original posse. My position on its history is pretty absolute considering I've written tons of code for bash.org uses and I was a moderator for years. Who are you? Aren't you some recent QDB.us mod? With that in mind, let me correct you.
I never said the origin of bash.org has nothing to do with this article. I preserved the links and text that were associated with the history of bash, bringing it back from previous edits and censorship by other users. The "separate fork" you mention (which I presume to be QDB.us) was not made by many of bash's founders at all. It was made by ZERO bash founders. The only relationship it has is in its subject matter. They're both databases of quotes. And yes, as it just so happens, both share a fair amount of the same early submissions. But, that doesn't mean it's a part of bash's history when it was created apart from bash.org.
Sure, the strike happened. I "signed" it. The mod strike didn't cause the creation of QDB.us. QDB.us existed long before the mod strike. QDB.us was originally under two other domains. But, that's not just bash.org's history. That's the history of QDB.us. If you want to mention that history, do so in a QDB.us wikipedia entry, or in a generic grouped entry for QDB. The mod strike was never published on the main page of bash.org. To be fair, the mod strike could be listed as history for bash.
My wholesale removal of links was surely "founded." You say neither MSN or Yahoo is based on Google code as justification for not being an external link on the Google entry, yet none of the old external links for bash.org have the bash.org code. Would they still be candidates for being external links because they have a similar purpose in their code? Perhaps because they attempt to emulate the design and functionality? How is MSN not "based on" the Google code when they offer a comparable web/image search service and color scheme? No, your logic doesn't hold up. Think about your Tetris example. What is tetris? Is it a specific website or product? Perhaps a piece of software written by a person? No, it's more than just one game, and the concepts are classic and far reaching. Listing "clones" or implementations of tetris is right on target. Sadly, bash.org is a specific website. If you want to list "clones" of similar sites, do so on a QDB wikipedia entry, where it would be more appropriate.
It's not my job to police wikipedia, and that's not what I've been doing. Check to see how many edits I've made. If I notice a fact or two wrong, I'll lend a helping hand to set the record straight since I actually know something about this topic. My purpose as an unregistered wikipedia user is not primarily to make gigantic contributions and create many entries, although I'm sure that is encouraged. I'm not going to make a QDB entry, because honestly, I don't really know too much about all of the other whacky quote databases out there, and I don't really care, either. What I do care about is contributing to the tiny specific things I know, like bash.org. So, as an authority on bash.org, I can tell you, sir dedicated wikipedia user CXI, to go ahead and create that broader entry for QDBs yourself, and don't just go randomly adding false information to a topic in which you are obviously not well versed.
If you noticed the edit history for the article, you'd see I made two edits, one of which was not commented and the other which was commented and marked as minor. On the major edit comment, I made some significant alterations. On the minor edit, I added a space so my comment to see this discussion page would be visible. So, no, I did not mark my gigantic edit as minor, and no, by correcting your false information I am not being trollish with my two or three page edits. I think you grossly overstated, and it's embarrassing for you to have your clown so decidedly punched.
By making up for your apparent lack of knowledge and constant edits to this article, I'm actually saving this article from your screwups. Do not be so quick to label me as in the wrong when you are being incredibly persistent in modifying this article with misleading and false information. I don't know why you are being so adamant about your misinformed crusade, but seriously, just move on. Make the QDB entry and edit your heart out. Let the people who actually are tightly affiliated with bash.org and who were the original posse that spawned the project be able to speak on its behalf. You have failed as our ambassador, and I relieve you from your duties. 24.170.50.17 -Josho (josh at bash dot org)


While I do not wish to start an edit war, I also will not stand for the seemingly trollish edits that are being made to this article. Please provide an explanation as to why you feel your deletions better the article. Thanks. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 01:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It should be noted that many who change the bash.org entry are actually affiliated with competing spinoff sites. bash.org's history can be traced as the original "QDB" -- it should be noted that motives of those who try to insert other websites into bash.org entry have less than altruistic goals that center more on gaining legitimacy and pageloads than on honest history of "The Original QDB -- bash.org" (as the title of the entry reflects). --blaxthos at bash dot org
Blaxthos, I don't see how QDB.us does not have anything to do with bash's history; after the mod strike, many of them moved over to QDB.us. Is this fact supposed to remain unmentioned in the article? It is a derivative work made by the original manager of the site, which I feel means it deserves a mention. Just because you dislike QDB.us doesn't mean it doesn't need to be there. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 03:25, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protected

I have reverted and protected the page at the pre-edit war version.
Please discuss your issues, and not spam RC with your warring.
Yours,
James F. (talk) 01:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Calm down

Please keep this unbiased, and do not make fun of other quote databases. Also, the truth of it is that it went from digdug.cx/quotes to geekissues.org/quotes and then to bash.org. The owner of digdug.cx and geekissues.org brought his site back as qdb.us. Personally, I would consider qdb.us "more original". However, that thought need not appear on this page as it's biased. Keep this page simply to state what bash.org is. Stop your war. terminal/geekissues / -Ryan Pugatch 22:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

should remain protected

personally, I believe that this article should remain protected, unless someone can give me a clear CONSTRUCTIVE reason why it should be edited. Perhaps what needs to happen is to have the disputes taken on a point-by-point basis, and to not have "furthermores" lump arguments together. We need to reach a comprimise that gives the most clear, unbiased point of view possible, even if it means showing both points of view and acknowledging a dispute. As a younger member of #geekissues, I witnessed the bash strike. I can say that qdb.us was not caused by the bash strike; however, it did experience an increase in popularity. The article never implies that qdb.us was created from the strike. The current version is accurate enough unless someone has specific reservations about it. Until then, it should remain protected so that people with special interests like blax or cxi don't let their feelings get in the way of their neutral point of view. signed, utopianfiat (Sun 12 Dec 2004 17:03:23 CST)

ps: this post might have something to do with terminal's. tl;dr - stop whining and get the page stable

grounds for unprotection

should be unprotected on the following grounds:

1. bash clarified not to be "spin-off"

2. hardware donation occurred once, not frequently

3. advertisement for other qdbs doesn't belong on the bash page, should be moved to an independent entry on QDBs (which this article should probably link to)

4. acknowledge qdb.us's relation to bash.org's accurately: pen created digdug.cx/quotes.html, but he was not a founder of bash. he was a mod, and he does own and operate qdb.us, which gained popularity after the bash strike, and was also the target of many a moderator movement. Should probably be its own subsection

5. josh calms down and admits that the sky is blue and that water is life. STOP THE WAR JOSH. ;[ (note to stupids: this last line is a joke)

open for commentary, let's just get this stupid dispute resolved.

signed, utopian


1 agreed, 2 agreed, 3 agreed, 4 agreed (and not disputed from the original), 5 whatever cracker. I didn't even realize there was such a terrible secret of space "war" armageddon going on until the great and powerful arbitrators stepped in to really make sure we calmed down. Thanks guys, without you telling everyone to calm down when we were all calm, I don't know what would have happened. Rest safe knowing you've prevented an incredibly tragedy, and I wish I was authorized to give you purple hearts for your top notch efforts in overreaction. Maybe even knight you for being so courageous to go against the grain with your original message of peace and harmony. Awesome work, everyone. Let's give eachother pats on the back. 24.170.50.17 -Josho
good, now blaxthos, what say you? signeth, utopianfiat (utopian)

Right

Josh: Firstly, I'm not affiliated with either site. I find your manner caustic and unproductive.

After looking into things, I admit I was wrong on a number of counts. I persist, however, that the spirit in which I argued was still correct.

QDB was made by zero bash founders, true, but it was made by the guy who wrote the original code for bash and it is a fork of that code base. It's misleading to follow your point with "the only relationship it has is in its subject matter", when that's patently false.

As I said before, the QDB code is a fork of the bash code, and regardless it's mentioned on the page and thus needs a link for reference. Tetris *is* a specific website or product, written by a man called Alexey Pajitnov. I hope you're not trying to imply that the idea of a number of tetrads falling down a screen to be eliminated by lines is more generic than a database of quotes that you can vote on.

I never claimed you were some kind of wikipedia policeman. What I said was that if you thought the information should be placed in another location then you should place it there rather than deleting it. If you don't have the knowledge or desire to do that, then don't.

I also resent your claiming I've added factually inaccurate information to the article, when in actuality all I've done is twice revert edits made by Blaxthos involving removal of the entire history section, half the external links and other parts of the article. If you want to argue that, I suggest you argue with the history page.

I have no doubt the "original posse" are "tightly affiliated" with bash.org, perhaps too affiliated. You should look up WP:NPOV for an example of why being closely related to a project isn't necessarily the best reason for you to contribute to its article. Blax would also be well advised advised to take a look at that before he accuses others of ulterior motives.

Regardless, I've attempted to improve the article to what should be an agreeable level. You can find it at bash.org/Draft. I've left the open source clone in it for the tetris-like reasons I outlined above.

CXI 10:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


CXI buddy pal, the discussion was already over before you made this reply. Your draft is exponentially more bad than the original post ever was, and I think we're going to go ahead and go with the very slight edits to the current article. Superb effort, but you're getting a B in my class. 24.170.50.17 -Josho
I have to side with Josho. CXI's primary source of information was myself. Not only am I heavily biased, but I did not have the time to give all the information on what happened. I was trying to get the big facts down first, and then sharpen the picture with details. Furthermore, a good portion of these events happened more than two years ago, so I'd have to really sit down and sort everything out, preferably with other people, before I can vouch for any of the dates and details. Finally, a lot of what happened is kind of personal, and not my proudest moments -- ones that I'd rather not share on Wikipedia.
This is hardly worthy of a public Wikipedia article, and I'm fine with the suggested minor changes. I do appreciate you trying, CXI, and I think that with more information sources and editing, it has potential.
I think that all the non-bash.org sites should be moved to a separate article. Personally, I'd like for QDB.us to stay as a fork of the original project, but I don't think it should be up to me to decide. I also think that the censorship that Blaxthos has attempted on multiple occasions is pretty childish. I commend the Wikipedia admins on taking control of the situation and leading to a resolution. --DigDug
I actually think that that version of the article is much better than the one that was already there. It provides a rather well-written, and more thorough, outline of the site and its history than it did before. Like CXI said, if you would like to move the information regarding QDB.us to its own article, go ahead; deleting the information is not the way to go about bettering articles. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 03:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I don't dispute that QDB.us may need to exist in the Bash.org article, but not as an external link. It should only exist in there as part of the strike blurb, and even then the justification is weak. I'm pals with DigDug and there's no anger/etc between us, and I'm not being biased when I make my comments on QDB.us. I just seriously cannot see the need for it to be a huge part of the Draft.
Being well-written doesn't make the article better. The history it presents is full of monikers like "cereal killa" and "zero cool" which makes the whole thing pretty hilarious. What I find more hilarious is CXI's selective memory: a "madog" is listed as a manager with "guilty," yet nowhere does it state how this "madog" person left years and years ago to be replaced by "blaxthos." Madog's managing stint didn't last long at all, and Blaxthos has been on much, much longer. Madog is less a part of the history than Blax, and the article makes it sound as if madog is still a manager to this day. If we are now going to mention cool hacker pseudonyms in an encyclopedic entry, where is the mention of Blaxthos? Leaving names off made the article much better in my opinion.
Funny how there's so much talk of neutral point of views, when what you need to ask CXI is who he interviewed to get the information in the Draft. The original wikipedia article was written by random Internet folk and was in the process of being fine-tuned for accuracy when the edit "war" broke out. The Draft was put together primarily from the position and memory of DigDug, the owner of QDB.us. For all of CXI's efforts to let me know I'm biased, it sure is funny how he persued his information gathering. The original article was fine, the draft is full of too much unrelated information.
There needs to be an umbrella article for ALL QDBs where all of the history and clones, etc. can be listed. Bash.org is just one site, and even if it served as the inspiration for a similar project, that piece of information should be listed on Rash's wp entry or the umbrella QDB wp entry. You can't expect to list every project inspired by a site on that site's entry. Likewise, you can't selectively choose which to list. "Other projects, such as x, have..."
Also, I'm not a smart guy, but some of these "facts" just seem to be arbitrarily thrown in. "Detractors have noted the size of the queue..." Which detractors? Do you mean yourself, CXI? Since you interviewed the QDB.us owner to get your facts on this, I think lines like this need a bit of a [tweak]. I also think using "nigger" like that is pretty unnecessary.
There's my 0.02$. I still think the justification for sticking qdb.us in there is weak at best. The strike and the result are important: the senior mods were fired. That alone is more than enough information to back up the reason for the strike's importance as a turning point in the insane pending queue. What's extraneous information is where the mods went as a result. And even then, not all of them went to QDB.us. They weren't commodities or MIT engineering graduates at NASA, they were just volunteers. Some mods were reinstated with bash, some moved to QDB.us, and some didn't even bother wanting to volunteer to mod on any site again. So why make that distinction on the bash page? Cut and paste it to an umbrella QDB entry. 24.170.50.17 -Josho
As I said before, if it's referenced in the main article it really needs an external link. I've already made my position clear on that, and on the clones - I've included them (well, one) because it's relevant. It is entirely possible to selectively include one of the spin-offs without the others as well, because it seems to be the only notable one. Feel free to prove me wrong about that. For reference, Rash has about 250 google results. There is another, more popular script called phpquotes, but it doesn't seem to be a clone of bash.org so much as just a quote database.
I admit the IRC handles look a little unprofessional, but what's the alternative? If someone goes to Wikipedia wondering who started bash.org, the answer they're going to get should be (depending on whether they're talking about the code or the site) "DigDug" or "Guilty & Madog". I've attempted to fix it a little, but it becomes cumbersome attempting to repeatedly reword "the creator of the site" and "the management" and "the other management that includes some of the earlier management but then changed" to stop from including pseudonyms. I could also include the even less notable real names, if that'd help and I knew what they were. Thanks for the heads-up about madog, by the way, I'd put it in the draft except I'm not sure when it occurs in relation to the other events in the history.
Avoiding weasel terms is good in theory, but it's controversial because a lot of people feel that it often doesn't apply. When there are many people who hold a particular view but none of them are notable enough to bear individual mention, it doesn't really make much sense. The alternative is "HardCawRocker68 said in his weblog that bash.org's queue was too long and they rejected his funny quote", which really just makes the whole thing sound useless. Oh, and I hope you weren't seriously suggesting that I'd pulled that statement out of nowhere. Firstly, there was a quote linked that satirised it. Secondly, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12].
My talk about neutral point of view is because you, Josh, are a mod of bash.org. That means there's a very high probability you'll be partial to certain views of the site that may not be neutral and may affect your editing. There's a difference between using information written by someone who's involved with that site and being involved with the site yourself, otherwise nobody could write an article on it. CXI 07:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Josh, what I find confusing is that you seem to be unable to decide what you want done; previously, it was to remove all mentions of qdb.us from this article, and now, from what I gather, you just don't want it to be an external link. The history of bash.org that you provide is helpful, but at the same time, your close affiliation with bash.org means that you will, by nature, be selective about which portions of the history that you wish to remember in this context.
I have an alternative to propose; place a "See also" link to an article for QDB.us, then provide the history of the site in detail, as that will include bash.org by default. This will both provide the opportunity to remove the external link to QDB.us, while still acknowledging that the article exists and is related to bash.org. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 23:40, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
CXI, Yahoo et al are all mentioned in the google entry and don't have an external link (listed at the bottom, that is; the term is still clickable). I also don't see why the more popular quotes script doesn't get precedence while the unpopular one gets plugged just because it attempts to cleverly use the bash name and style. Why not mention bsah.org? How about fuckbash.org? Notbash? Some of those don't currently have a QDB system set up, but all of them did. Should we have listed them as external links because of they are spin-offs and clones who are more closely trying to emulate bash? It's better to just establish the practice of putting rash, fuckbash, bsah, phpquotes, et al in an umbrella entry for QDB.
The alternative to handles is not to use your draft.
Yeah, the strike was important. The result is important. What the mods did or did not do after is not really important. Also, linking to 0.0001% of quotes in the database that reinforce an opinion does not make it a candidate to be put in the article. Do I know or care what quote is "amply mocking" someones stereotype of bash? No, not really. I don't know why you'd want to mention it, especially using "nigger."
If your reason to talk to me about neutral pov is because I'm a mod of bash, then I have news... I'm not a mod of bash. Nor am I a mod of QDB! Whoa, plot twist here! Sure, I have my opinions, but I've been involved in the history of BOTH QDBs and all that was before them. So, I know the history, and I can certainly be impartial. I don't want to write the bash article, I just want to throw in my input to what I think would make it and all the qdb entries better. I'll restate the fact that you got your bash.org draft history from primarily one source... the maintainer of qdb.us. Redirect yourself to the neutral POV article.
Mo0, re-read my last entry. I say I can understand why someone would want to put QDB.us in the bash.org article, but I really don't think it's necessary. The strike is important, sure, and should be mentioned, but where the mods went later... not really important.
I am in close affiliation with both QDB.us and bash, not just bash. Also, I was one of the mods "fired" from bash for striking. If I hated bash so much and was fired, why am I a swiftboat veteran for truth? I'm not having a selective memory of bash history. I'm disputing the need for external links to other quote databases existing on the bash.org page. What needs to happen is an umbrella QDB or QuoteWebsites article that contains all of the information anyone wants to have, including external links and see also links and all sorts of links and glorious doodads about websites with quotes. Throw a See Also link on the bottom of each entry that is linked on the QDB page to the QDB page, and pow, problem solved. Bash.org will have a See also: Quote Websites, QDB.us will have a See also: Quote Websites, etc. That just makes more sense than linking a RQMS page one day, a QDB.us the next day, a sweedish QDB the next day, etc. 24.170.50.17 -Josho
Where are you getting the idea that every QDB should get a link to them on this article? I know of someone who coded a qdb-esque program for one particular channel's amusement, but you don't see me arguing that they should be included, do you? My general understading of your view is that you don't want to see QDB.us mentioned in this article. You still haven't provided a real reason as to why that is. QDB.us IS closely related to bash.org, it DOES have a similar feel. fuckbash, notbash, and the other examples are deliberate knockoffs; QDB.us is an offshoot that is run by one of the original people behind bash. As of now, bash.org is basically stagnant and unfunny, while qdb.us is actually updated more than once a week. If anything, QDB.us should be the major article, with mentions of bash.org in it. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 04:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Uh, what? Didn't I just say that every QDB and spinoff should NOT get a link on this article and should be instead linked on an umbrella wikipedia entry for ALL quote websites? Isn't that what I've been saying since the beginning? I guess in answer to your first question, I'd have to say that I'm not getting that idea at all, and you grossly misread/misinterpreted/etc what I said. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me. Anyway.. blah blah, restating history now since you didn't read anything in this thread, qdb.us is not run by any of the bash people. Also, your last two sentences are just way too silly to even comment on.
Response to the comment below: QDB.us is a derivative of the original QDB, which was at geekissues.org. It's not a spinoff of bash. I'm not connecting them. I said make an umbrella entry where you can list whatever relevant quote database websites you want. Calling your arguments is silly, since you're suggesting replacing the QDB article from the dominate and more popular quote database with the less popular underdog QDB because, at the time, your opinion is that the site is not funny and stagnant. How is that not ridiculous? How does that in turn make my arguments silly? 24.170.50.17 -Josho
Admittedly, I phrased that first sentence weirdly. I was trying to point out that I didn't see the logic between connecting QDB.us, which is a major spinoff/derivative of bash, and those other ones, which existed solely as parodies (I assume). Also, if you don't have anything to say about the last two sentences, why didn't you just not respond to them? Calling my arguments silly is a bit hypocritical at this point. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 06:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Egh, damnit. I had a decentish reply and I must have forgotten to save it before closing the window. Okay, I'll try and be quick about this. You seem to have not paid attention to most of the arguments I presented.
  • I've already given you the rationale for including QDB.us that everyone but you and blax seems to agree with.
  • I've already said RQMS was included on the basis of notability by comparison to other clones. I've already said it was included rather than phpquotes because it is an actual clone rather than something loosely based on the same idea.
  • I've already told you the problem with not including names in the History. "The altnernative to handles is not to use your draft" doesn't change that.
  • I've already mentioned that using an intrinsically POV source doesn't necessarily violate NPOV. All sources are biased, and the point is you try to separate the fact from the bias wherever possible.
  • I've already said that the problem with "no weasel words" is that you sometimes get an opinion held by a bunch of individually non-notable people. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by saying that the quote backing up the opinion isn't notable.
  • I've already told you that often being too close to a project means you're likely to have a bias about it. Saying you're not closely involved with both projects rather than just one doesn't mean you're any less biased. I'll admit I was wrong about you being a current moderator, though. Sorry about that.
  • Most importantly, I've already said that if there's something wrong you should at least suggest a solution. You've kept claiming my sources are biased without actually pointing out any factual inaccuracies in the history (except one, which I said I'd include in the draft if you could give me a position in the timeline). You've given a lot of problems but never solutions, and that's not really helping anyone.
Anyway, it's become increasingly obvious that this argument isn't going anywhere. I think QDB.us and RQMS should be included, you don't, etc. If you have any real concerns about the draft like suggestions or corrections then I'd be glad to hear them. In the hope of bringing some cooler heads into the discussion, this has been put on WP:RfC. Hopefully that'll allow us to reach some kind of a consensus. CXI 08:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/s/Talk%7EBash.org_Archive_1_504c.html"