Jump to content

Talk:Urban75

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fridgemagnet (talk | contribs) at 11:41, 1 November 2005 (revert to last edit by Taxman). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Re the revert wars that don't seem to end

There seems to be a constant and unconstructive continuation of these edit wars, and so I think it is important to detail who is more accurate in their editing.

After this page was expanded, I contacted the editor of Urban75, giving him the link for the page which at the time was the revision as of 21:00, 31 May 2005. He agreed and accepted the accuracy of article as of that date, save for a few minor personal details that he asked to be edited out.

The political nature of the site, which seems to be the main point of disagreement for the page, has been confirmed as 'left wing' instead of 'liberal' by the owener of the site.

Anything contradicting this can, I think, therefore be regarded to be inaccurate. Anyone who disagrees with this, please raise it here on the discussion page, instead of resorting to vandalism on the main page. Cheers! - Thenugga 00:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I appreciate that you are new to the messageboard which is the topic of your quaint article. Please state the exact words of the messageboard's owner when he declared it to be a "left-wing website". (unsigned comment by 81.156.210.59, 9:43, 19 June)
    • Apologies for my late reply. First of all, this being Wikipedia, this is not my 'quaint article' and it is ridiculous to say so. Secondly, the Editor's exact words were a brief 'Thanks for your efforts, looks great', before asking me to remove personal details. Thirdly, as I have said below, there seems to be some confusion over the dispute perhaps: the particular section which has suffered edit wars is not the messageboard section, as many appear to have believed, but the protest/activism section of the website, over which the Urban75 community do not have control of. (see below) Thenugga 10:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert wars again

I don't think we're ever going to see a resolution to this problem - Wikipedia's too good to have Urban trolls coming over and ruining it. I'm putting this article for VfD. Smileyrepublic 13:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • PS. This is after I've had the fake "Ernestolynch" and the IPs all stuck up on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress several times, and my user and talk pages vandalised (replaced with redirects to Pedophilia. It's fucking me right off, and I don't want the cunts from Urban75 over here as well. This "link" between the two sites has to go. Sorry! Smileyrepublic 13:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect - who are you to come in and comment on a topic you have no interest nor knowledge upon? It is power-crazy people like you that wikipedia was set up to by-pass. (unsigned comment by 81.156.211.66, see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress)


I think it's a bit much for one of the perpetrators in the latest edit war to come in and complain about them and put the article up for VfD. I'm letting the VfD stand but I'll block User:Smileyrepublic if he edit wars again. A small warning, too: I don't use the WP:3RR but Smiley's behavior is way beyond that and he's tripped my personal standard for "disruptive editor". He could be blocked for up to a month if he behaves especially badly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


More Edit Warring by 'Warofdreams'

It seems that a contributor, who admits to having very limited knowledge of the messageboard the article refers to, keeps reverting to an out-dated and discredited article which casts a slur on users of the messageboard. He claims to be a member of Urban75 called 'Tokyo', although a quick survey of regulars revealed him to be an unknown, and possibly trolling element. Would the editors kindly warn this disruptive user, 'Warofdreams' about his petulant behaviour.

Thanks. (unsigned comment by 217.45.252.26 12:26, 19 July 2005)

  • There is a consensus for the (accurate) version of this article describing it as "left wing" and excluding the various other additions, such as describing people as trolls, which you have made. It's nice to see you finally discussing your endless reverts to your version of the article; if you could address the issues rather than slinging slurs at various users. You also seem somewhat confused as to who the editors are. We are all editors of Wikipedia! Warofdreams 09:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prove this idea that posters on Urban75 are 'left-wing'. If you could, seeing as you don't post there. (unsigned comment by 217.45.252.26)
  • As you are in a minority of one, you are going to have to demonstrate that it is liberal rather than left-wing. The large number of posters from socialist and anarchist groups and the tiny number who describe themselves as liberals (regardless of what your opinion of them may be), suggest to me that the consensus is correct. Warofdreams 10:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs to be settled, and I believe there may have been some confusion in the edit warring. The specific section that has been so ferverently edited is the Protest and Activism section, where it has been disputed as to what political affiliation it is.

This section of the article deals with the protest section of the main Urban75 website (link) and not the messageboards, as seems to be the impression by some users. (Examples of such left-wing articles found in the section here and here.

The messageboard section of the article does not mention any political leanings, as, yes, liberals do post on the messageboard, as well as communists, anarchists, socialists and even right-wingers. However to save any confusion in the future I have made a small change to the title of the section so there is no doubt as to what part of the article refers to the messageboard and what does not.

Hopefully this will slow down the reverting a little bit. Thenugga 10:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naming the editor

Thenugga seems to have a problem with XX name and likeness being included on an entry about a site he created. This is proposterous. Apart from anything else, XXs name and address can be easily discovered by doing a whois on urban75.com! Wikipedia's accuracy should not be affected by a neutrotic webmaster's paranoia and sense of self-importance. Ernestolynch 11:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why his name and in particular his picture have to be on here if he has requested they are removed. While it doesn't place Wikipedia under any obligation to remove them, removing them as a courtesy makes sense. As an example, we removed the article on Jimbo Wales when he requested it was taken down, and only restored it when he relented. Warofdreams 12:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with it, XX himself does, and has specifically asked that any mention of his name be removed from the article, which I respect. Your vandalism/trolling is becoming increasingly weary, 'Ernestolynch'. Thenugga 14:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

Let's see if we can finally settle this dispute with a straw poll. Please register your vote as a signed-in user.

  • Urban75's online community is best described as left-leaning.
Support Warofdreams 09:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urban75's online community is best described as liberal-leaning.
  • Drop the adjective altogether from that sentence.
  1. Acerimusdux 04:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Smileyrepublic 15:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Warofdreams 16:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous

So a bunch of people who aren't potentially members of this English bulletin board are going to decide on whether the general current of thought is liberal (in the English NOT American) sense of the word, or Communist (ie Left-leaning).

If you are so knowledgable about this bulletin board - which gives you reason to keep trolling this article - why don't you post up a poll on the bulletin board itself?

Do you have any interest in contributing to Wikipedia? If so, then you must follow the conventions laid down by consensus. I couldn't care less what your definition of left is, or who you regard as a troll. I have been extremely patient and am following the standard procedures for dispute resolution. If you are not interested in resolving disputes on Wikipedia, I suggest you desist from editing articles on it. Read Wikipedia:No personal attacks before communicating with me again. Warofdreams 16:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a no then. You're not a registered member of the bulletin board to which the article refers, you have scant knowledge of it, yet you persist in this strange obsession with it. Why?

As I have told you before, I have used the bulletin board on occasion, and have been a registered user for several years. The content of Wikipedia articles needs to be decided by Wikipedia, using the clear evidence of the overwhelming number of left wingers on Urban75 compared to self-defined liberals. Of course, these are just one or two words which, while they set the tone of the article, are only a tiny portion of the whole. However, they rather represent the last bastion of your inaccurate version of the entire article. We can perhaps look at your version of the Libcom article, entirely POV, which it appears you have now abandoned. I've tried getting a consensus - which, bar you, we have; I've tried setting up a straw poll, which you have ignored. What do you suggest as a way forward? Warofdreams 16:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, that is correct. Wikipedia must follow Wikipedia's rules. Whether people are or are not members of the BB have little bearing on what this article should say other than having some knowledge of the subject. So, are there any other areas of dispute or is the left/liberal issue the only one? Is there any objective evidence available to decide the issue? We'll need more participation than the two of you to have a consensus. - Taxman Talk 20:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for locking the page - I hope it's given things time to cool down. While there have been several issues over this page - as can be seen from its history and this discussion - the left/liberal line is the only persistent issue remaining. Perhaps the answer is to remove the words from the intro paragraph entirely and instead insert a discussion under "Forum culture" of the political tendencies of users of the site. Warofdreams 11:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

Ok, the revert war seemed to be getting nowhere. I didn't see any way to tell what was the best version to protect, since this war seems to have been from the beginning. But it won't kill anyone to have the article not in their preferred state for a day or so. Please work out a consensus here, on what is the best label and policy for inclusion of other information, and only then I or someone will unprotect the article. If anyone would like to continue editing non disputed areas of the article, please copy the article source to Urban75/temp and edit that. Please ask for wider opinion in order to establish the best consensus possible. I have no connection to the subject of the article and I know nothing about it, and I will remain that way, only here to decide when there is consensus, and make sure the process is fairly administered. Thanks, and lets be productive instead of reverting. - Taxman Talk 23:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I see no serious edit warring in the history. Whole days go by without any editing. As protection is generally regarded as a last resort I'm taking the liberty of unprotecting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LAME!

Two months of arguments over two words is rather depressing. Urban75 now has a very well deserved spot on WP:LAME.


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)

Original research

Now that I think about it, nearly the entire article is original research, and needs to be either removed, or cited to a source. Original research includes anything that is the opinion or observation of the editor adding it, that is not from an outside published source. That sounds harsh, but we need to follow Wikipedia policies here. Again, we are an encyclopedia, not a discussion board. Only material verifiable by outside source should be in the article. So are there any sources to back up what is in here? If something can't be verified by an outside source it should be removed. - Taxman Talk 13:05, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've added a reference template to the article, if I get the chance I'll list a few references. Most can be found on the Urban75 site itself, or direct links to certain posts/threads on the message board. Thenugga 14:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well do what you can, but of course the site can't serve as a reference for this article except in very limited circumstances. That's circular, and what we're after is independent references. If you're referring to using the site to find reference to articles written in the press about it, that of course would be better. - Taxman Talk 14:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


Critical sites

The "bannedfromurban" site that is repeatedly added and removed is an incorrect representation of posters who have been banned from Urban75 - we've banned far more people than that by a factor of at least a hundred, it's an advocacy site basically and I don't think has any value as information - but what is the status of sites critical of the subject of an article? Could some more experienced editor comment on this? --Fridgemagnet 20:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Penfold demands no criticism. He is always right. Perhaps he could shed light on this fake 'Ernestolynch'. Are you posting here under that name? Y/N
How dare you criticise the hard-working and under-rated mods at urban? Those bastards deserved banning, and I'd ban more, in case they posted critical comments too. Kid Eternity 21:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)I never fucking posted this![reply]

Hear hear! I'm glad you are gone, you big bully. William of Walworth 16:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forum Culture

Would the user User:Warofdreams please use this discussion page before he inaccurately edits the section about Forum Culture. Twenty Enschede 10:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]



urban75 brand

The article should probably contain information on the captain's protection of the urban75 brand, and his clothing line (produced in stirctly limited quantities to make it underground and exclusive) [1] Pickmans 10:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the captain's quote - as the messageboard part of his site is not open to the public.

"Well, if there's enough interest a different version of the shirt could be sorted. That way the original stays exclusive, but others can sport a similar shirt with pride. And I get some cash!"

This is in reference to the 'Urban75 Baby Eating Anarchists' t-shirt which is another arrow in his corporate quiver. Anarchism is made sexy and packaged for the masses to wear, and the Internet Anarchist makes more cash to fund his shopping trips to New York.212.85.15.75 13:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the t-shirts should say "Free Daffyd Humphries - The Only Anarchist In The Village" and a proportion of the sales profits sent to the cleaning ladies who work at his school?

Either way - it's high time he stopped disrupting Wikipedia, just because he can no longer disrupt Urban75. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.236.52 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected

No relevant discussion on talk page in five days, so not much point in continuing to protect.

I've also taken the opportunity to archive a lot of discussion from this talk page that seems to have nothing to do with the article or even with Wikipedia. Please save that for Urban 75's forums. The archive link is at the top of this page. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please bear in mind that if another edit war breaks out over the content of this article then it will only be protected again. Please discuss any changes to the article here before actually making changes, and also please bear in mind that the edit summary is not a place to dish out warnings to other users. --Francs2000 File:Uk flag large.png 16:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Explanation of Tony Sidaway's rollback of a long series of edits by 84.93.151.6

The editor 84.93.151.6 (talk · contribs) has recently made a long series of edits:

The net result of the changes seemed to be:

  • Change "and several others dedicated to specific regions" to "and several others dedicated to small-minded kvetching about specific regions"
  • Change "Members of the boards tend to be referred to by some as urbanites, although this is not necessarily widely used." to "Members of the boards tend to be referred to by some as 'urbanites', although 'tossers' is widely used."
    • This is inflammatory and clearly intended as an attack on the board. Again this violates our Neutral point of view policy.
  • Addition of the single word "Twats" to a paragraph about Mornington Crescent.
    • This is obviously vandalism.
  • Alteration of a quote from Time Out magazine that originally said "the best thing to happen to the Dogstar in donkey's" and "...so successful it hurts!" to read "the only thing to happen to the Dogstar in donkey's" and "...so pedestrian it hurts!"
    • This is obviously vandalism.

Taken as a whole, this series of edits seems to me to be vandalism. I have therefore rolled back the entire series. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since then I have made the following rollbacks for much the same reasons:

--Tony SidawayTalk 23:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was the fact that your 23:04, 1 October 2005 revert restoring the old version of "Forum Culture" that I modified deliberate? I'm happy to debate the changes that I made but I've not seen any justification for the original additions yet, and edits like the Guardian being parodied by "PC Gone Mad" are just not true and part of the "liberals" thing. --Fridgemagnet 09:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making a distinction between edits with which I may disagree, and edits which are blatantly unencyclopedic. I believe that the latter, taken alongside other actions, are clearly intended to turn the article into some kind of jeremiad against Urban75 and its owner. As a sysop, I'll roll them back as vandalism. I won't touch other edits, even if I disagree with them. I'll let the editors of this article decide by consensus. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Forum Culture" section

Edits made just now by myself to the section previously known as "popular phrases" were on the following bases:

  • "Popular phrases" changed to "Some phrases", since not all of these are popular at all; see below.
  • "Rascist" was not invented by ernestolynch, I've seen it used elsewhere numerous times, though he was one of the posters who popularised its use. Also added "Facist" here.
  • "bangs on perspex screen" (as opposed to "bangs on screen") was invented by ernestolynch as far as I can tell, but it's certainly not a popular phrase, hence change to section title.
  • rorymac can't be defined as "oft-banned" based on having been banned for short periods I think three times over all the years he's been here. Lots of posters have been banned more than that. It's certainly one of his (many) catchphrases but I'm not sure how relevant this is as he's not the only one who uses it.
  • "bookmarks" isn't just an expression of interest, it can also serve a sort of purpose, though not a very good one. The editor has not threatened to ban people purely for using "bookmarks" but for repeatedly using it as their only contribution to a thread and wasting space (hence the banning of oddjob). I wouldn't say that it's popular at all either, I've not seen it used for at least a year and maybe two.
  • "bin/ban" and "bin/ban/etc" evolved over a period of time and I certainly wouldn't say that rednblack "invented" the latter. The latter half of the sentence is a parody of the real reasons that people use the phrase, intended as an insult.
  • Suggesting that people use the phrase "PC gone mad" to refer to Guardian readers just isn't true. I've edited to give a more accurate representation that doesn't refer to any newspapers at all.

--Fridgemagnet 16:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Political correctness gone mad" is a phrase often used by Sun columnist Richard Littlejohn, as documented in his Wikipedia article. Presumably in the Urban 75 context this phrase is intended to parody this style of writing. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is, yes, and also of writing in the Daily Mail and various other papers. I don't know whether it would be better to define it solely with references here. It's certainly not something that appears in the Guardian. --Fridgemagnet 18:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My revert

I've reverted the article; the changes made by the anon user were patent vandalism. Warofdreams talk 11:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions of this talk page

If the unregistered user who keeps reverting this talk page cares to check, there's a link to the archive of this page with all the material on it you keep trying to restore. The essential problem is that at 35 kb long the edit you keep trying to restore is too long for some browsers to display properly: therefore it is common practice on Wikipedia to archive discussions that are no longer current. And please don't dole out personal attacks to other users on Wikipedia, especially if you're doing exactly what you're accusing others of doing (removing other people's edits). -- Francs2000 File:Uk flag large.png 15:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to achieve consensus

Despite the presence of several admins regularly editing this page no attempt has been made to achieve any sort of consensus on this article. There are clearly several editors who wish to include criticisms of urban75, yet any attempt to include these is being reverted as vandalism, a situation not helped by several actual vandals.

I've removed some of the more obvious POV language, and some unreferenced quotes, and added a section for criticisms. Hopefuly this will help end the interminable edit waring. Conspiraloon 18:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this is going to help considering the vast amount of context that needs to be taken into account, but let's see. I'm certainly not convinced at all by any of the recent wordings of said section which seem to be pretty POV.
Incidentally I have altered the section about "illegal squat parties". There is no secret section of the board devoted to parties which most people don't get to see. However, people might well organise things on their own through PMs, like they organise lots of things with people that they happen to have met on the board but which have no connection to the site itself. --Fridgemagnet 19:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moderator list

I've made a couple of modifications to this list. Referring to some moderators as "friends of the editor" and not others seems pointless. Why would I be listed as his friend and not Mrs Magpie or Ruby? Clearly we are all friendly.

miss minnie was not "promoted" and there is no such title as "editorial moderator". This seems like an attempt to stir up the "when was miss minnie elected / she's not a proper mod" nonsense again, which took place well before the summer of 2005 in any case. She does a lot of technical work as well as moderating, which is what I've put. --Fridgemagnet 10:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's an improvemenmt to list hatboy as a banned moderator rather than retired. Accuracy is important.

Perhaps once the Urban75 article has been set it can then be locked? And then perhaps a procedure with any proposed changes to the article/s emailed to the admin with the persons request or posted up with a "request to change/amend" posted up at the bottom of the Urban "Talk" page or at the bottom of the article itself.

These are only ideas and may or may not be even possible to implement. Obviously I'm not a reguler user of Wikipedia but the place would still operate on much the same level as it did but with the the vadelism and "rewrite Wars" kept to a minimum. I'm sure these proposals have been suggested previously but I do believe that they do have merit.

I think it would be entirely reasonable and accurate to say that the Urban75 poster Ernestolynch was banned from Urban75 for the same pettiness and cowardly behaviour as he shows in his Vandalism of Wikipedia.

<e-mail address removed>

User:211.29.242.110 12 October, 2005

Critique of current version (18:34, 6 October 2005 82.35.32.230)

While the site has a diverse readership, it is incorrectly regarded as being dominated by anarchists.

Regarded by whom?

The bulletin boards have grown into a popular community, with around 20,000 registered members, although only a fraction of which are active posters.

Should read: ..although only a fraction of these are active posters.

--Tony SidawayTalk 17:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I originally wrote "often" regarded - clearly, it isn't regarded that way by everyone - but it often is, by people who know of it primarily from the Brian Paddick "anarchist" comment, an image being played up to by the recent "Baby-eating Anarchist" T-shirts. Warofdreams talk 09:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"By people"...evidence please. Please declare when the T-Shirts came onto the market, to qualify your "recent" remark. Please also declare which username you post under on Urban75. Thanks. 212.85.15.78 09:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poor grammar in current version and POV.(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urban75&oldid=24731980)

Criticisms have been made of the banning policy on the board, suggesting that bans are unfairly distributed and the length of bans is inconsistent,

Should read: ...Criticisms have been made of the banning policy on the board, suggesting that bans are unfairly distributed and that the length of bans is inconsistent,

Also, the opinion suggests that criticisms are a thing of the past. This implies a POV, and needs correcting by the people that are allowed to change the article - the board moderators? 86.137.106.5 15:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anyone can change the article. While it would be best to discuss any major changes first, a small change such as inserting a single word should be pretty uncontroversial - try adding it yourself! Warofdreams talk 16:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't imply anything of the sort. That criticisms have been made is entirely accurate, there is no indication of time period. Furthermore the sentence about moderator responses is in the present tense. --Fridgemagnet 11:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

  • Hatboy and Spud Murphy are not moderators any more, so it seems pointless for them to be on the list of moderators.
  • Attributions of phrases, which I dispute and have no evidence to support them, have appeared again somewhere along the line, with a bizarre extra dig at WoW (it has never been used as a dig against him that I can remember, and in fact is used by him) and an implication that the original Bookies thread raised money for the site owner rather than the server fund. My objections remain exactly the same as detailed earlier on this talk page. I've removed them again. They are pretty irrelevant anyway; if a phrase is "popular", it doesn't belong to any one person any more, even if its first user could be identified.
  • "bannedfromurban", apart from apparently having been abandoned anyway, is an extremely selective list of people who have been banned from Urban75.

--Fridgemagnet 11:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Urban75&oldid=27064860"