Talk:Neowin/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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.


Contents

Several Reverts on this article by Doom127

There have been several reverts back to the old and un-edited article by Doom 127. He has given no reason for the reverts other than "This article didn't need such a total rewrite". The revisions to this page over the past month have definatly improved the page by adding more content and organising it in a much better manner. Wikipedia tells us to be bold in editing pages that need it and this page needed it. Unless Doom127 provides solid reasons for keeping the old and less structured version on here, I will keep reverting this page back to the newer version, or until I have to report him. As it says at the bottem of all submit boxes: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."

Thank You, Noneloud 01:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: Doom127 change your original title and I just correct it. --Microsoft Fanboy 18:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Um... the edit history shows that YOU changed it... then changed it back. How juvenile. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 18:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Wait, my mistake. I just got confused. B4L didn't change it twice, but it wasn't Doom127 either. Noneloud changed the title himself. [1] -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 18:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Response
I haven't visited the page in a long time, but I just visited it, and I have to ask, Nonetheloud, what are you talking about?
Please look at the edit history.
The revertion I made was a response to Brazil4Linux; He did an edit that made a major sweeping change that undid a lot of other user's legit edits. [[2]] <- Those are his edits. The reversion I did put back the changes everyone else had done -> [[3]], which is why I stated that the article didn't need that much of a rewrite.
As a matter of fact, the version you put on top -> [[4]]
Is the same version that I reverted to. Daniel Davis 02:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)
I really would like to apologise to you and the whole community. I jumped to conclusions when I read the history page and all I saw were the changes you made and the current page at the old setting. I was really off-base and I cannot appologise enough for my lack research into what was happaning. I am truely imbarased about lashing out at doom127 when he was acctually one of the people (including Hinotori) who were acctually preserving the article. I hope everyone can forgive me now that we know who's on what side and the vandalisim has ceased
-Noneloud 03:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
No worries. Everyone makes mistakes. :) -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 03:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes by Noneloud to this article

The article inadvertently got returned to the old and unorganized version when someone was vandalizing it, so I reverted it back and added the information that has come since then. If you want to see my reasons of changing the layout of the article, you can find them in this discussion's history.

I don't think "criticism" belongs in this article since all wikipedia articles are supposed to remain non-point of view. However, I don't want to step on any toes.

-Noneloud 04:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think "criticism" is always an essential part of NPOV, IF it's a genuinely notable part of the article as a whole. As long as said criticism isn't presented as fact (which is the way it was presented before my edits), it can be a meaningful balance to the overall text. On the other hand, I really know nothing about the topic, since I was merely trying to tone down the POVness of the edits, so I'm not entirely sure if the criticisms are actually well-known and significant, or if they're just the ramblings of some disgruntled user. Since I'm ignorant on the matter, I won't add them back in, but it'd be nice if someone else who DOES know about it could weigh in.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 10:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I think they are just the ramblings of a disgruntled user like you said. Of course Neowin leans more twards microsoft products, and of course Slashdot is more biased twards linux. It's the nature of the sites' content. I've removed it for now, if has a good reason for it being there or have a better way of wording it, please don't hesitate to discuss it.


-Noneloud 10:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Information On Forum Culture Please

It could be good if this entry also contains a section on Neowin's forum culture. A.K.R. 04:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Forum culture has a great Windows XP skining scene and high amount of Microsoft Fanboys.

VfD

Why is this delete thingy still here? It was decided to keep it by the looks of things :/--Cheesegoduk 03:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which would be all well and good, except it still shows up in the associated category. I've thus removed it. —Korath (Talk) 00:05, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Moved VfD down below the useful discussions EAi 12:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Copy of Vote for Deletion

This is copied from the VfD for this page and is not an active vote.

Wikipedia is not an advertising medium for web pages or anything else. Also note the uploaded image. Geogre 16:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - It is a good informational resource, and their forums are a good place for help.
  • keep it! - Dab (comment by User:81.76.127.237
  • Delete. Advertising. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 17:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert. — Gwalla | Talk 17:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 17:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Advert. "Our staff (however dedicated they are) give up their valuable time to contribute to this website as a hobby and means of contributing help to others. Please take this into account when you see typos or "unprofessional reporting" we cannot be compared to CNet or ZDNet who are paid journalists." That's a fine way to advertise your site to a group of unpaid volunteers, many of whom hunt typos and clean up shoddy writing on a daily basis. Delete. Spatch 17:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obviously. -- Solitude 20:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Neowin has an Alexa rank of 11,401. We have articles on far less notable websites than this one. It shouldn't stay in its current advertising format, but if it's rewritten within the next 5 days, then keep. If not, delete. Angela. 23:44, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep!' The "advert" has been removed. -- User:Anon 5:35, 20 Sep 2004 (PST) (User:69.225.60.75)
  • Keep. I have toned down the entry further to maintain NPOV. -- quanta 10:21, 20 Sep 2004 (EST) (User:67.71.167.81)
  • Keep. (unsigned comment by User:202.172.40.156)
  • Keep; has been cleansed of advertising. (Above votes slashed due to their being contributed by anonymous users.) -- Grunt   ҈  02:36, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've removed the strike-thru on the anon votes. While anon votes are steeply discounted at the end of the discussion period, we've learned that it just makes for hard feelings when you try to remove their comments early in the discussion process. We don't need more baseless accusations of "censorship". Please be patient and let the process work. Rossami
      • FWIW, Rossami, I disagree with you and think that strikethroughs on anon votes are appropriate. We shouldn't care too strongly about people who are only on wikipedia to vote on their special interest/vanity, rather than actually contributing. Encourage them to become upstanding citizens? Yes. Encourage them to vote right away? Certainly not. --Improv 19:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Comment. The last time Rossami made a point of removing such strike-throughs all the votes by newbies were counted. Jallan 01:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • Really? Then I think we made a mistake. Anons and sockpuppets should be noted during the discussion and discounted at the end of the discussion. My objection was that an overly-aggressive edit response seems to inflame emotions and creates even more sockpuppets. Of course, we seem to have gotten that here anyway. Next time, I'll keep my mouth shut. Rossami
  • Delete - ad/vanity page Zwilson 02:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - dont see much vanity myself Frankchn 08:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Its a shame to remove such a good resource. (unsigned comment by User:212.113.164.98)
  • Keep - How about also deleting the entry for Microsoft? Isn't it also advertising? (unsigned comment by User:213.58.141.120)
  • Keep - Get rid of advertising, but if this has to go, why not get rid of entries for sites like Slashdot etc. MM2K 23:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it is removed, then so should Wikipedia!!! (unsigned comment by User:68.236.37.33)
    • Comment: To all readers, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Please also log in before commenting. Because of the damage done by sockpuppets to these discussions, unsigned and anonymous votes are steeply discounted. Rossami
  • Delete. Ad/vanity. --Improv 19:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert, non-notable. Oh, and sockpuppet voting doesn't help your cause. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • No inherent objection, but as it stands it is closer to ad than to something encyclopedic. -- Jmabel 23:26, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert/not shown to be notable. Andris 02:46, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's not an advertisement whatsoever, so why should it be removed? Websites have a right to have an info page about them. This is in part what Wikipedia is for. User:Jake11
  • Keep I rewrote the information again, and it seems to be less ad-like. There are also Wikipedia website articles such as Newgrounds and Miniclip... I don't think this article is any different from those website articles except that it was created in a bad manner and had some bad edits by anonymous users. squash 03:24, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although I object to the sockpuppet votes to keep, it is notable enough based on Alexa rank. And what Squash said. ElBenevolente 03:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep There are wikis for a huge number of websites out there; if this entry is too ad-like, correct that, don't delete it entirely. -- Guspaz 04:16, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 05:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Neowin is a major tech resource on the net and this page allows for people to quickly get information about the site and it's background. - BTallack
  • Damn, there are a lot of anon/probable sockpuppet contribs. So here is the Alexa rank of this site: 11,401 - I have not placed any vote. WhisperToMe 05:09, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see typos and it still looks like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article. Why don't the sock puppets calm down, stop spamming, go away, and come back in a month or so with a genuine encyclopedia article that people couldn't say no to, something about the history and growth of the site, its problems, things it has done wrong, and its successes along with some genuine information about its background. Stop pushing marketdroid crap. Deletion of this advertisement does not prevent a good encyclopedia article from being created later. And, if it was someone attached to the website who spammed this here, fire that person for harming the site's image.! Or is it that if this doesn't get in right now that some spammer's job is on the line? You wouldn't send an advertisement to the Encyclopædia Britannica or Encarta and expect them to accept it or an advertisement to Slashdot and expect them to feature it prominently for free or try to fix it up for you to look as though it wasn't an advertisment. Stop the marketing sleaze. Jallan 01:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Angela. Deadvertisate (is that a word?) , then keep. Kim Bruning 18:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Keep the organized and clean version

Note that Hinotori and Doom127 is reverting to unnorganized, unwikified, bad version with lot of trash-content for simply vendetta with another user that they thinks am I. Thanks. --Microsoft Fanboy 18:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

They are reverting to the organised version. Stop this please MS Fanboy.
-Noneloud 23:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected

All sides need to discuss the changes rather than continuously reverting the page. Also, each and every person involved in this needs to read WP:AGF. I have seen charges of vandalism being bandied about more times than I can count. I'd be perfectly willing to help mediate if you all deem it necessary. —BorgHunter (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

BorgHunter, with all respect, you need to research this issue more thoroughly before making assumptions. User:Takeshi Namura, User:Microsoft Fanboy, and almost all the anon ips (all of the ones that are reverting the article) are sockpuppets of User:Brazil4Linux who has been banned from editting by User:Alkivar for a month. The rest of us here are more than willing to discuss any changes, but he is currently dead set against any attempt to do so. For evidence, I ask you to read this section on this very talk page, as well as the following: Talk:Ken Kutaragi, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Brazil4Linux via anon IPs. Again., Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Doom127.
Further evidence in the history of this very article is that several of the ips trace to the veloxzone service in Brazil that Brazil4Linux has been documented to use. E.g. 201.29.39.137 traces to: 039137.user.veloxzone.com.br
This user IS a vandal. See: Vandalism on my page. He's vandalized my user page 16 times and my talk page even more. The ip of that edit in particular, 201.29.11.33, traces, again, to veloxzone in Brazil at 20129011033.user.veloxzone.com.br.
He's also vandalized Doom127's page: Vandalism on Doom127's page. I've lost count of the number of times Doom127's page been vandalized by him, and the ip of that edit in particular also traces back to velozone in Brazil (not that it matters, since the vandalism is nearly the exact SAME as that on mine).
There's more evidence too if you want it. For the record, all of us DID assume good faith ages ago; this has escalated WAY beyond that, but there's little we can do since he's hiding behind a dynamic ip. Forgive me if I don't waste my time looking up the policy.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 23:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, this all may well be true. However, regardless of if the user is a vandal, the edits which have been reverted are not vandalism. As such, mindlessly reverting them (and, of course, reverting them back) is revert warring. Incidentally, I do not see much discussion of the contents of his edits on this page. Discuss the edits, not the editor. —BorgHunter (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
He's blanking large sections of text without giving us a single reason. Personally, I think he needs to defend his actions. As I've already said, he has consistently neglected attempts at discussion in the past and hasn't defended his edits here once. And if he's blocked, HE SHOULDN'T BE MAKING EDITS AT ALL ANYWAYS. But hey, even if he's not even supposed to be here, if he decides to come here and talk about it, I think we're willing to hear what he has to say.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 23:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Since he was the one who requested protection, I think it's fair to assume he'll be here soon to discuss the edit. If he's not here in 24 hours, I think consensus would belong to you and yours and I'll unprotect the page. To be honest, his lack of participation in the talk process is indeed disturbing, and does lend credence to your argument. However, I am an absolute stickler for WP:AGF. I suppose I could easily be naive. Oh well, 24 hours of protection will not hurt. —BorgHunter (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
You've stated "the edits which have been reverted are not vandalism." I respectfully must disagree... The page version being put forth by B4L isn't an edit, it's a reversion to a page over a month old, back to this page version -> [[5]]
The guy literally wiped away an entire month's worth of contributions in a single sweep. Those sweeping changes undid a heck of a lot of work by Hinotori and Noneloud. I believe that erasing a month's worth of edits without any prior discussion (and forcing the preservation of those edits using anon Ips and socks) is vandalism. Daniel Davis 23:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)
To clarify, a lot of work was erased, but none of it mine. I first got involved in the Ken Kutaragi debate and because of that, I've become involved in these articles because Brazil4Linux was going from page to page reverting pages to versions that no one agrees with. In all the chaos that he's caused, I've decided to help out as best I can. In other words, I have no ties to the edits themselves. Personally, I could care less for Microsoft, Sony, or any of these topics. What I DO care about, however, is a renegade user is violating every single policy from civility (see his hateful anti-US rant on the Ken Kutaragi page), to sockpuppeting, to revert-warring, to vandalizing, and to consensus breaking. I believe in WP:AGF as well, but there comes a point where it's no longer an "assumption," but a fact. A CheckUser isn't necessary; the evidence is overwhelming. There are only two possibilities.
1) Half a dozen new accounts and three times that many ips (most of which trace back to the same isp that B4L uses) that edit only the articles that Brazil4Linux edits, make the SAME exact edits, and that don't exhibit any individual personality save to occasionally make a comment in the exact same stilted English that B4L uses are actually different users.
2) They're all B4L.
Given the massive evidence of the past, it's got to be almost a mathematical impossibility that it's anything save 2.
And the "editor" DOES matter here. Why? Because the editor is blocked. If we allow blocked users to make edits and evaluate their value, we really destroy any purpose of blocking users at all. Because then it's not a block, it's "well you can't edit unless you make an edit that's not 100% clearly vandalism." I'm still willing to listen to what he has to say, but I feel I should state that, for the record, I think that in itself is being too generous.
-- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 00:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Current Version

Lot of nonsense here. I just can't see a reason why these guys are reverting instead WORK on the article (wikify, organize into sections, etc). It's authentic wiki-stalking/vandalism. Regards, --Takeshi Namura 02:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not multiple people, it is only Brazil4linux who has been vandilizing articles other than this one as well. Myself, Doom127 and Hinotori are the ones who have been making these reverts because we are the ones who have been the ones who have worked on this areticle and made it where it was best. Brazil4linux is simply using his sockpupets to vandilize.
-Noneloud 20:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/o/Talk%7ENeowin_Archive_1_a97b.html"