Talk:Urban75 - Wikipedia

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.

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)

Banned from Urban 75?

I've removed the following note from the page, posted as a comment by User:Ernestolynch:

"WARNING TO URBAN75 USERS - If you edit this article you risk being banned from urban75"

I'm unsure why this might be the case - in any case, I haven't been banned from the website, but thought that the talk page was the best place to raise any issues. Warofdreams 11:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's pretty borderline, even as an html comment. For one thing, there's the issue you raise of whether its true or not, and there's also the point that we don't need to do the warning. We don't care if people get banned from it, it's not our site. Let them warn and ban people if they want to. Besides, now it's on the talk page, it doesn't need to be in the article edit text. - Taxman ^Talk 11:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly true, as a bit of research will show. At least two users have been banned for editing this article, and seeing as most of the edits on this page are by urban users, I felt they ought to be warned that Mike Slocombe thinks he rules wikipedia too. Most people won't bother to read this talk page, so a comment in the source is the only way to inform people. Ernestolynch 14:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way the poster calling himself 'ernestolynch' on here is not the long-term poster calling himself 'ernestolynch' on 'Urban75', and who is now banned. Just to clear things up for the gestapo.