Talk:The Best Page in the Universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the class scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Best Page in the Universe article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2004. The result of the discussion was Keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep.
Archive
Archives
  1. April 2005 – June 2006

Contents

[edit] "Hits"

I think it's pretty clear that when Maddox says "hits" he is referring to "unique visitors". His hit counters do not increase with refreshes, and he has implied this by using "page views" to express the other meaning. However, most people think "page views" when they see "hits", so it kind of devalues the comments on unique visitors by calling them "hits". I changed this before, but it was lost in passing, so I'm posting the reasoning here. Colin 18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure, also, that he said somewhere he just makes up large numbers for the counters. (At the end of articles, I mean) 72.192.54.23 00:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mothers against Maddox

If Geocities site is genuinely notable in criticism of Maddox, that does rather suggest that Maddox is not, in fact, terribly important... Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

...believe me, it was a big thing. --mboverload@ 22:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
It's still a Geocities site not updated for two years written by somoene who didn't get the joke. Just zis Guy you know? 12:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, what are you trying to call for? Removal of the MaM section? Suggestion that Maddox may not meet notability requirements? He's been blocked by three countries - I believe that is very notable... Hbdragon88 17:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
how's that notable ? absolutely everything is banned in 3 countries. 190.10.4.55 03:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny, the attack on Mothers against Maddox is very similar to the method used to discredit the 2004 Osama bin Laden video! The Legend of Miyamoto 01:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The petition MaM made happened to become one of the largest onlines petitions on petitiononline (it was in the top ten). I think that's pretty big. THe reason the MaM site hasn't been updated is probably because they gave up after the petition went bad.

[edit] Orbitz is unimportant

Previous versions of this article claimed that there was a major backlash against the travel industry as a result; I removed it, asked for sources, and nobody provided any. Over at the Maddox article, previous versions have claimed that Maddox was deceptive and "lost a large readership" as a result. The current version is just lame - a description of one his articles, which in itself is signifiacnt enough for inclusion here (if we include that, then we have to include every other article he's ever written). Any event mentioned here must have had some kind of outside effect, such as the DJ copying from his Diaz article. Hbdragon88 03:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't edit this in, seeing as I can't find the data again (Orbitz has since changed hands), but there was a noticable drop in the value of Orbitz stock immediately following the Maddox article. If someone knows of a place to look it up, the stock ticker was "ORBZ" 66.165.31.200 02:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, even if there was a noticeable drop, it isn't necessarily linked to Madodx's article. It oculd have just been a bad quarterly report or something. I know Maddox does wield influence, but to affect the stock market? Hbdragon88 03:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Granted, but bad publicity does have an effect on companies stock, even if its coming from within a small niche group. Do we know if any larger news sources picked up on the story? If so, that would draw a fairly conclusive link. Also, im refering to a few day period after the article, not a quarter. 66.165.31.201 04:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quite ironic, really

This is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. It reads more like propaganda for the cult of Maddox rather than an encyclopedia article. I've removed some of the junk on the page, but there is so much junk that the article would need a complete rewrite to even be useful to a reader. (Ex. What non-Maddox visitor cares how much he updates? The article attacks the Mothers against Maddox, treats the controversy like babble, and treats Maddox like a god, hence my use of the word "cult"). The Legend of Miyamoto 20:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're willing to take a shot at it, by all means go ahead. I've edited it quite a bit - it's much improved over before I edited it - but it could surely use an editor totally unfamiliar with Maddox, like you appear to be. Hbdragon88 06:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I can easily identify what doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I'll just be the counterpoint to the massive pro-Maddox POV. As you said, I'm relatively unfamiliar with the site and thus do not support it. The Legend of Miyamoto 20:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
How can you say that you are against something that you know little to nothing about? There was a popular movement based on this idea in the not so distant past. It was called Nazism.
I said I did not support it. I did not say that I was against it (I hate it when people don't bother paying attention to my words). The Legend of Miyamoto 03:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
"It was called Nazism." <- you are a douchebag that has absolutely no clue what Nazism is about.
Godwin's Law, anyone? 75.70.245.46 07:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Awards the argument to The Legend of Miyamoto Plebmonk 01:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears fixed and neutral now, and all remining info is verifialble, so the POV tag is gone. -- Chris chat edits essays 16:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And here I naively thought Wikipedia was above Godwin's law. Touche, internet, touche Mujarimojo 01:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much of George's personal life

From what I know of it, the Charity has little to do with the site itself, and is more of a personal venture of Maddox's, even if the visitors of the Best Page in the Universe contributed to it. Also, the fued between the Something Awful and Maddox has very little to do with the Best Page in the Universe. It should be moved to Maddox's article. (69.241.228.117 23:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Commujism and BPITU

Commujism is not the same than Best Page In The Universe, it shoulden't be a redirect. --200.89.6.215 23:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden Pages

I changed the link of the hidden pages from The Best Fanpage In the Universe, to Maddox Addicts, which has a larger and more complete list, but someone edited it back. Why?DevinOfGreatness 18:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it because it looked like a really small fan site, in comparsion to the large installed fanbase of The Best Fan Page in the Universe. But if it is a more thorough list, I'll leave it be. Hbdragon88 02:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Maddox Addicts is now linked by Maddox, so I guess there's no debate anymore. DevinOfGreatness 22:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The hidden pages of Maddox Addicts is a copy of the one at www.hidddenmaddox.tk, wich is more idiotic complete. --MarshalOctopus 11:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

While this is one of the funniest things on the web, I'm somewhat concerned about possible lack of notability and original research. Almost everything cited here is simply links to Maddox's descriptions. Does anyone know if this actually meets WP:WEB?19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)JoshuaZ

This article needs a clean up to remove unnotable citations, and to get other notable, verifiable and reputable ones added. All links to 'The Best Page in the Universe' should eventually be removed, since they do not qualify as being notable:

"Independence" excludes works affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

I'm starting out by putting 'primarysources' tag on it and removing part of the criticism section which contains weasle words and original research. --Dr. WTF 01:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Kill the lot of it. I wrote the majority of it at the time when I believed that it was never violated WP:NOR when citing soruces. Now I know that you can still make original conclusions with sources, which is what much of this article is. Also, per WP:SELFPUB, the site can be used as a self-published source, but the article cannot comprise of only those sources. hbdragon88 02:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feminists

I just wanted to suggest changing "women acitivists" to "feminists". He specifically targets feminists, as opposed to ALL women activists(as feminists are the extremists of women's rights, and that is specifically what he bashes them for). 71.232.239.11 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Stephy

WOmanistsMujarimojo 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should there be trivia?

I think so, but erring on the side of caution let's discuss it. Plus I only have one addition to the collection. If you Google "My Balls Are Huge" or on Yahoo "I hate old people", it brings you to Maddox's site. That's not enough to start a whole section, IMO, but does anyone else have semi-useful facts about the site that would be categorized here? Mujarimojo 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, trivia is frowned upon per WP:TRIV. hbdragon88 05:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
K, I'm new. Mujarimojo 04:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something Awful

I was watching a video of Maddox at a book signing, and one of his fans happened to bring up his feud with Something Awful. Maddox stated he had resolved his issues with Richard Kyanka, and later went on to imply that this specific article was wrong. [1] , look at 5:00 --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  22:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A better source than YouTube is needed, following WP:YOUTUBE. Douglasr007 00:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article should have a section about how infrequently he updates his site

Seriously. It's the most prominent property of his site these days, there should be a section detailing it. BTW, would taking some articles-per-unit-time averages be considered original research? S. Morrow 23:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole article could be considered up for deletion eventually because of lack of a serious lack of updates. Defunct anyone? Bactoid 09:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

I honestly don't think that there at that many "reliable sources" around for something like this. There are certain topics where they just do not exist.

Then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. hbdragon88 06:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not have an article about a website. Articles about published authors and other famous persons are acceptable, but articles about web sites should be marked for speedy deletion with the db:web tag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.59.55 (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure it should. Especially if that website has a major fan base and is a source of debate. You want to delete the Google article? Eno-Etile 03:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
No, if we allowed articles on anything, then we would be in real trouble and the qualiy of Wikipedia would go to shit. Anyway, WP:WEB is the bone of contention here. It must have reliable, third-party media coverage. Sadly, this means that big Internet things such as The Abridged Series cannot exist. Google is very notable in the sense that it is a big corporation that is traded on the NYSE and even has its own word in the dictionary hbdragon88 05:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thats ridiculous. Everything should have an article ( assuming some kind of sources can be found or that the bulk of the article would consist of basic facts or common knowledge). Wikipedia isn't a large corporation and it has an article. This isn't a conventional encyclopedia that requires a limitation on the number of articles or limitations on what qualifies as necessitating an article, so why recommend we do that? And a lack of sources doesn't mean that there shouldn't be an article, it just means that the content of the page should consist primarily of common knowledge or that sources need to be found, or as a last resort "un-sourced flags" can be put up. Several pages lack sources but few of them are recommended for deletion. And you think the quality of wikipedia would "go to shit?" The already abounding POV, flaming, poor grammar, terrible spelling, and lack of intellectual writing seem to be bigger threats to the quality of wikipedia, and those exists on almost all discussion and article pages. Eno-Etile 02:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the "eighth most visited site on the web" and it has spawned literlaly hundreds of articles about its reliability, as well as issues with user identity (see Essjay controversy) and competition with Citizendium and the wiki model in general. WP:NOT#PAPER, sure, but WP:NOT#IINFO, either. hbdragon88 03:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is a vanity Page

This page is obviously written by Maddox himself and features nothing but bragging, written in third person. Not only that, it only shows Maddox's view on his controversies, like MaM. The site was formed, so Maddox spammed their petition and mirrored it on his site to spam it some more? Where are their receptions, comments, etc to what he did? He had a feud with Something Awful, all we have is a really sterilized Maddox-friendly version of that.

Wikipedia has been criticized for it's tangents on pages about websites, flash comics and internet celebrities, so why are they being so loose with adspace about this guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusher (talk • contribs) 09:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I admit, I am a fan of Maddox, but I've tried the best I can to clean it up as much as possible. I now recognize that this doesn't have a single third-party reference per WP:WEB. The only deletion debate that this has undergone is way back in early 2005, and I guess it may be time to reappraise its suitability here. Iam in favor or redirecting this to Maddox (writer) hbdragon88 23:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Its not the best written article on wikipedia, but I don't think it needs to be deleted. It has a lot of readers, fans and critics. There are several articles about less important or noteworthy subjects that are even more poorly written. Let's start at the bottom and work our way up.Eno-Etile 03:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and list examples. What other articles are in just as much trouble? hbdragon88 05:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point with the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS bit.Other than that your argument is crap. And listing crappy articles on wikipedia would take much more time than I have. The page is not a vanity page and it doesn't need to be deleted. The web page receives thousands of hits daily and has a major fanbase that seems to warrant an article. If you have a problem with a POV slant, change it instead of crying for deletion. If you don't know enough about the subject then you can look up information on it, or have someone with more knowledge on the topic make the changes. Or if it reaally bothers you try to have it merged with Maddox's site. Eno-Etile 02:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:WEB, c'mon now. I listed an example that also has just as large as a following (The Abridged Series) that was still deleted. Kings of Chaos receives thousands of hits a day and it too was deleted. I don't know enough? I literally wrote most of this article. Where did I ever say that it was vanity? I said it may not be suitable for existence here, but that anon was the one who said that it was vanity, not me. I don't have a problem with a POV slant, don't confuse my point of view with the anonymous user's point of view. hbdragon88 03:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say you that you don't know enough about the topic. I said if you don't know enough and it was not intended as an implication but as a preventative measure to keep someone from retorting "I can't fix it because I don't know enough about the topic." The topic is "This is a vanity Page." Since I took up an argument counter to the topic's I assume anyone arguing against my argument would be agreeing with the topic, sorry. Also when I said "your argument is crap" I meant the whole deletion argument not just what you specifically said.

Isn't there some organization that monitors hits to web pages or something? That could be used as a third party reference, and if the MAM site is still up maybe it can be used as a reference of sorts. Eno-Etile 20:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)