Talk:Urban75

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] LAME!

Two months of arguments over two words is rather depressing. Urban75 now has a very well deserved spot on WP:LAME. Anyone got a GOOD reason for not including a section on board splits lol?

[edit] More Trolling by Warofdreams, Thenugga and Taxman

When will these vandals desist?.

Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism and especially Wikipedia:No original research. The second one is a formal policy about the kinds of material not allowed in Wikipedia articles, and what you keep adding back qualifies very clearly as original research. Now if you continue to add the material back in clear violation of that policy, then your edits do become vandalism, and you can be blocked from editing for that. We are not a discussion board, and you don't get to write whatever you feel like nad keep putting it back in. - Taxman Talk 07:59, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Finances

This section was deleted from the article: "Others have criticised the site's lack of openness about its finances. With posters regularly donating cash to Urban via standing order, the management have come under fire for not accounting for how these funds are used and, indeed, how much they amount to." This is perfectly true, and doesn't constitute vandalism. If criticisms of the site are to be mentioned, why can't this one be included? Madashell 23:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any reference for this on the web. Do you have a reference? If so, I'll put it straight back in. Warofdreams talk 01:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It is true that this was one of the criticisms made by some of those who first set up TTG, here's an example of a thread where it came up, which has been archived [1] Madashell 08:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If you collar the editor down the pub, he'll gladly tell you the state of the finances. And it's not like people are forced to contribute money. Its more bitter weirdness from people who should know better.

That's your POV though. Leaving aside the fact that this depends on everybody living in Brixton and MS telling the truth all the time. I'm not saying there's any truth to the claims, but they are criticism that have been made, I don't see any reason to consider that particular paragraph vandalism. Madashell 11:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

They are criticims that have been made by certain people who bear some kind of weird paranoid grudge. No one else gives a fuck.

Again, that's your POV, I don't see any legitimate grounds to consider this vandalism. I think WP:AGF comes into play here. It'd help if you signed your comments btw. Madashell 11:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


And your point is just your pov. So what? And sign my comments with what? A name that won't mean anything to anyone, just like yours? Whats that gonna achieve?

If you put four "~" after your comment, it comes up as a signature, it makes it easier to follow the discussion. The point I was trying to make about POV is that wikipedia has a netural point of view policy, that you don't agree with a criticism or don't think that it is a fair one is no grounds to remove it from an article. And there's no need to be so combatative.Madashell 11:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


OK, I will put the tildes in. I'm glad that wikipedia has a neutral pov policy, so why stick in the criticism about finances? You do know where it originates from? Where all this petty vandalism originates from? 81.178.192.135 11:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be factual information, that these criticisms have been made is a fact, as long as the criticisms are stated as criticisms made by certain individuals and not as facts, then they should be included, surely? Madashell 11:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Lots of criticisms have been made, including one that the editor is sponsored by Sony (not true btw), are you going to include them all? Or are you going to take into account that a lot of these criticism are spread by one or two bitter and twisted individuals for their own agenda? I post regularly on U75 and don't see anyone questioning the finances. The only place where I do see ths issue raised is on the tolling gang site, and what business is it of theirs? 81.178.192.135 12:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course you never see it mentioned on Urban75, bringing it up is grounds for instant banning. Ernestolynch 12:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Utter, utter nonsense, posted by one of the aforementioned bitter and twisted individuals. 81.178.192.135 13:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you think that it is "none of their business" the criticism have been made on other websites, and you admit as much youself. WP:NPOV means that all points of view are considered equally valid, whether or not you agree with them. Madashell 11:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


You do know who's been making the criticisms don't you? And why? 81.179.239.121 12:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I would assume it is someone jealous because the source of funding didn't get into their pocket, so they prod at the pocket it got into, in jealousy. Terryeo 18:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

USING WIKIPEDIA FOR CHILDISH SNIPING IS NOT ON. It just isn't. I really wish both sides here would just grow the fuck up and stop adding POV shite to wikipedia. Madashell 19:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


you appear to be adding your own POV though

What part of my edits have been POV? They've been entirely factual. People have criticised the site for lack of openness over finances. That's not POV, it just doesn't contain your POV. Madashell 20:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


You know full well.

Again, what part of my edits constitute a violation of WP:NPOV? It's a simple question. Madashell 20:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"A group of people who are now banned have criticised the site for it's percieved lack of openness about its finances. With posters regularly donating cash to Urban via standing order, the owner has come under fire for not accounting for how these funds are used and, indeed, how much they amount to. Moderators reply that it's not an issue for most people as no one forces anyone to donate money."

This seems neutral enough to me, but, this is turning into an edit war. I'll leave it up to the admin to decide. Madashell 20:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


you know full well. btw please stop claiming to be impartial, you're not - you're a major poster on the tolling gang site (as I am on U75 btw)

I'm not claiming to be impartial, I'm just trying to keep this article NPOV. Some people seem determined that it should be otherwise. I don't even agree with what some people on TTG have said about urban75's finances, but it is relevant to the article that these criticisms have been made. Madashell 20:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There's not actually any sourcing at all for the comments repeatedly left in this category - the thread on my site that is archived (from two years ago!) doesn't actually back that up, it's just one poster, subsequently banned for other reasons, talking about the relationship between donations and treatment on the board, amongst other things. And NPOV doesn't mean that all POVs are equally valid. Quite the opposite. It means that the only acceptable POV here is a neutral one. I shall try for a reasonable edit in due course. --Fridgemagnet 20:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV
"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.
Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."
Stating that the posters were banned for disruptive behaviour is engaging in a debate. I don't think that the paragraph is perfect but it's hardly deliberately and clearly a violation of NPOV. A few people from urban75 are being more than a little paranoid about this and are very clearly trying to shut down criticism. Madashell 20:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


madashell - by leaving out the context of the criticisms your only telling half the story. 81.178.114.74 20:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

By only putting in the urban75 management's perspective on the context of the criticisms, you're doing the same. Madashell 21:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


So why not just leave the whole thing out altogether then? Because I can't see any way out of this impasse. 81.178.114.74 21:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Because there's no reason that the criticisms shouldn't be in there. It's just silly to leave it out. Does anybody have any objection to the following?
""A group of people (who are now banned after a series of related, but separate, disputes with the owner and moderators of urban75) have criticised the site for what they percieve as it's lack of openness about its finances. Moderators reply that it's not an issue for most people as no one forces anyone to donate money." Madashell 21:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do, because it implies that they were banned because of criticisms. "related, but separate" doesn't cut it. --Fridgemagnet 21:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, the problem is how to get the right balance between context and having to put links in to a load of threads on different bulletin board archives to avoid it being original research, as far as I can see. How about "A group of people with a long standing history of disputes with the site's management (and were later banned due to a separate dispute)"? It doesn't read very well at all, but I can't think of a tidier way to put it. Madashell 21:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
"A small subset of banned posters have subsequently questioned..." because that was the order that it came in, and we ban an awful lot of people. Mostly spammers and fash admittedly but NPOV and all that. Needs sources of course. --Fridgemagnet 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I've no problem with that, it seems like a reasonably accurate description. Madashell 21:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

btw - its not the managements perspective - you know full well that certain people were banned for being disruptive and they are also the main people going on about finances 81.178.114.74 21:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive is a value laden word. Wikipedia isn't here to take any one side in a debate. Madashell 21:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm quite happy to have "criticisms" of the financial arrangements here as long as they are put into proper context. That's not even been hinted at yet and you (Madashell) should be well aware of that. --Fridgemagnet 21:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


madashell - by not posting the context, thats exactly what you're doing - taking sides 81.178.114.74 21:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

hey madashell perhaps here would be a good place to discuss the various death threats and slander that has been talking place recently on your beloved little tolling gang website? I notice there is a tolling gang wikipedia entry up and running...

No, this wouldn't be a good place to discuss that at all. Stop trolling, peekie. Madashell 12:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who it is trying to kick this off again, but the particular version of the paragraph was agreed upon here. I really don't appreciate some of the totally untrue allegations being levelled at me, I'm not "waging a sustained campaign" against urban75, I wouldn't waste my fucking energy. Madashell 14:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING INANE COMMENTS AND PROFANE LANGUAGE

You're the one who's coming on here flaming people and making unfounded accusations without even attempting to engage in discussion. Madashell 18:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, this is classic, check out this guy's other "contributions" [2] and [3]. Madashell 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

Nearly the entire article fails WP:NOR and WP:V. The site cannot serve as a reference for itself except in extremely limited circumstances. Without reliable third party references information cannot be included in the article. Everything that has no references needs to be chopped out. I brought up the same point in September 2005 and very little has been done, so now is the time. There's been way too much wasted time on this article for it to be in this poor shape. - Taxman Talk 17:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finances. Again

The sentence;

Moderators reply that it's not an issue for most people as no one forces anyone to donate money.

Dosen't really make any sense. If the site was openly for profit, or demanded membership fees, there would in fact be less reason for financial openess. Traditionaly charitable institutions, which urban75 clearly likes to think it is, by virtue of asking for donations, are required to provide more details of their accounting than commercial ones. Ernestolynch 15:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Except that makes little sense as (a) U75 isn't a charitable institution and (b) people donate off their own backs, their is no pressure at all to donate money and (c) ernestolynch has an axe to grind

  • What we really need are references which are not from bulletin boards or blogs. Rather than debate this endlessly here, if the allegations have been made elsewhere, let's have a reference - and if U75 have replied to them elsewhere, let's have a reference for that. Without any references, they will need to go - see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Warofdreams talk 00:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • If we're going to get picky about verifiability, then we'll need to delete huge swathes of the article. Shall I begin? Ernestolynch 09:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If it isn't verifiable, then it needs to go - but first, we should see if we can verify it. Warofdreams talk 17:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "Moderators" haven't said anything as far as I'm aware, and the statement as it exists is not a proper summary of all responses given. I note that, still, none of this is sourced - a reference in the talk page to a PDF of one thread two years ago by one person which doesn't actually make the charges concerned anyway doesn't count. Actually, the same goes for other things in the section. --Fridgemagnet 09:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's obvious to all that the only reason the finance issue has been raised here is so that Ernestolynch and other banned posters can attack the website Urban75 without posting there. Bearing in mind the amount of posters banned in early Feb of this year who were actually trying to grass the site owner to the tax inspectors for supposed undeclared income, this issue is purely a manifestation of the idle, malicious and indeed libellous gossip mongering that TTG is now famous for.

Therefore all references to finances should really just be removed, whatever Madashell has to say about it, seeing as he helped instigate this latest spat.

There are no figures and if there are it is none of Ernestolynch's business. He should be worrying about more urgent matters at this time.

See also Madashell 08:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verification

To start the process of verification, I've added {{fact}} tags to each statement which appears to need a reference. The basic description of the site content does not need a reference, since the evidence for this can be Urban75 itself. Similarly, the introduction doesn't need references, since it essentially summarises what is covered later in the article. I've also removed the list of board management as being non-notable and difficult to verify (unless we take U75 as a source), and the financial criticisms, since extensive discussion of them has failed to unearth any valid references. If you have any references for the other points, please add them to the article. Warofdreams talk 00:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There's an "Urban75 radio" forum on the boards, but the website for the project appears to have been taken down[4], apparently it's being revived, though I'm not involved in the project, so I wouldn't know about that. Madashell 21:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Urban75 homepage.PNG

Image:Urban75 homepage.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)