Talk:Urban75/Archive 1

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?

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)

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of the criticisms made by some of those who first set up TTG, here's an example of a thread where it came up, which has been archived [1] Madashell 08:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Advertising/Corporate resistance

There seems to be an edit was going on over the wording of this section. Neither version has any references, clearly neither is uncontroversial, so I'm removing it for now. Please do not reinstate either version without either adding reliable references, or discussing it further here. Warofdreams talk 13:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi warofdreams. Have a look on Urban75 site, there is a thread where editor talks about the recent instated ads for beer money. Thanks, have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.172.54 (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a statement from the site owner:-

I have got one very popular page on urban75 that I really don't give a fuck about, and I'm thinking about putting adverts on it for a limited period to raise money for charity.

Or maybe new turntables for Offline or just some beers for the mods.

The page has around 100,000 page impressions per month. I don't give a fuck what the page ends up looking like. Any idea what kind of money it might make?

This statement was made some time ago and ads have been up since then. Jontyjoesph (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Replacement of referenced statement with unreferenced statement

Jontyjoesph, you (and/or your various sockpuppets) keep replacing the referenced statment:

"The entire urban75 site now attracts in excess of quarter of a million page impressions per day, but remains totally non-commercial and advert-free. We continue to shun lucrative advertising and corporate sponsorship deals, with the site being run and maintained by the editor and moderating team." "

with

"A public vote showed that the majority of site users were against any form of advertising, even when it came to carrying advertising for 'politically acceptable' items like Fairtrade and ethical products."

...where is your reference for this?

Pontificalibus (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi.

I would appericate it if you would provide the relevant evidence for sock puppetry BEFORE you repeatedly accuse me of being one. Espically since you have allready been repeatedly asked to do so by Wikipedia admins.

Anyway, that statement wasn't written by me but is part of the version I am reverting to as to say there is no advertising on Urban is false. Anyway here is your ref: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=149062&highlight=advertising

Jontyjoesph (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the reference you provide re: advertising is that in the header post on the thread editor makes a clear argument that he is opposed to advertising ("I fucking hate advertising and I pride myself on the fact that urban75 is one of the very few large, truly independent sites left untouched by corporate sponsorship, banner ads, pop ups, pop unders and text links."). The FAQ on the site also *clearly* states that it is advertising free. I think you clearly need to recognise the non-commercial nature of the site in the article as it's a clear feature of the website -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Blue Square Thing: Yes, but that was some time ago. editors poisition on advertising has since changed which is why I quoted the following:-

I have got one very popular page on urban75 that I really don't give a fuck about, and I'm thinking about putting adverts on it for a limited period to raise money for charity. Or maybe new turntables for Offline or just some beers for the mods. The page has around 100,000 page impressions per month. I don't give a fuck what the page ends up looking like. Any idea what kind of money it might make?

The referance is there as proof of the vote, and not editors current poisition on advertising. Jontyjoesph (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The experiment with very minor advertising, as I understand it and as referenced on the boards within the last month or so, has lapsed. If you can find me a page with an advert on then I'll believe it!! Until then I think it's very clear that the overwhelming philosophy of U75 and one of the key things that makes it virtually unique for a community of it's size, is that it's got a no advert policy on the boards at least -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should wait until you find the ads before you revert next time? I'll leave the page for an hour or so. It is possible to find whatever you need before you create or edit a page you know ;-) Just be careful with reverts, there's absolutely no point getting into an edit war about something like this. Whilst you're at it, btw, you could look for a NPOV source to back up claims either way of advertising -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Can you provide the proof that this has lapsed please? http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8174603&postcount=41 Jontyjoesph (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was from a thread from Feb 2009. That isn't the case - there is one solitary page on the entire site with 5 google adverts on it. I'm not convinced that the current edit here reflects that at all - I'd like to see a reference to the advertising free nature of the boards for example. I'd like to see you combine the elements of the recent edits - I'll let you do it first and see what you can come up with. I'm also wary, however, that a lot of this is self referencing and original research rather than npov. An obvious solution to that would be to remove the section -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the section. It can go back in when someone comes up with an authoratitave thrid party citation Pontificalibus (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine by me -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

oh it wasn't a minor experiment as I understand editor regularly places ads on the site and usually gives the reason of "being short on server funds". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enemytrue2 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What you understand, however, isn't justifiable for inclusion - you need stuff which can be verifiably referenced from a third party source. If you can do that - and if you think it's notable (which, frankly, I'd need to be convinced about) - then go ahead and add it. But until that point, it'd be grand if people could leave the article be Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

References

Clean up

Started a bit of work on this article as it reads, in parts, like an advert - I'm sure Urban75 would understand wikis policy of not being a place for promotion etc.

A Lot of unsited or poorly sited claims, also. Anyone got any good independant sources on the site?

Will be working on this article intermitently. Collaboration appreciated. 90.197.125.137 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it definitely reads like an advert. Unforutnaly there seems to be a group of users from Urban75 who have grouped together to remove anything that dosn't give a posisitve outlook to the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enemytrue2 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I would go as far as to say the entire article needs re-writing from it's current, frankly, promotional only stance. However in the mean time I think the edits made by enemytrue are entirety appropriate. --Spocks4Cousin (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've made a start on straightening a few facts out and also adding additional info aswell as removing false information. Unfortuantley there a few problems users out there reverting my work at the moment. Jontyjoesph (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of your changes look fine at an initial glance, but please ensure that they are correctly referenced (a generic reference to the forums is no use), and also leave off the fake "warnings" to users that they will be blocked. I know that you have used several accounts to introduce the claim that there is advertising on the site, and I say again, if there is, please show us where it is (and a reference to show that this is notable). Warofdreams talk 16:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Jontyjoesph (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Jontyjoesph here - it has been stated on the Urban75 site that they charge for some of the club events. I have also read the posts where the Urban75 editor himself state that he had placed ads on the main Urban site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enemytrue2 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Then, as requested above, provide an appropriate reference for your claims. Warofdreams talk 15:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

here you go: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=9753276&postcount=18 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebinger (talk • contribs) 09:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

intresting statement thanks Mikebinger !! There you go Warofdreams/ ponitificaubs/ blue square thing and whatever account you are using i don't think you can still claim a lack of evidence to editor shoving ads all other the site and spending large amounts of serever funds on beer and curry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren542546 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A verifiable, third party reference would be lovely though - referencing the subject of the article is *not* third party referencing. That way you avoid POV issues. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

So BST why are there currently 3 references that lead back to the main Urban75 site? Also I think *you* are in a bias position as you are good friend with many Urban admin team members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren542546 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok war of dreams i do think a lot of Urban75 but even I can see that they are being very bias with this article i think you need to check the URban75 site a bit better and with clearer visions. --TheUrbanite (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to look at the site itself, because the material Wikipedia can use is what's verified on reliable sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth to look at the edits the user "Mayhill" as made.. It would appear that Mayhill is the site owner, Mike Slocombe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren542546 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is being exploited for profit by Betascript Publishing

didn't realise urban was this popular Urban75: Internet Forums, Brixton, Bulletin Boards, The Levellers (Band), Adobe Shockwave, Brian Paddick. --109.224.137.121 (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Can I just point out that I have evidence that much of the current article was written by the webmaster of Urban75. I think this should be re-written under NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren542546 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am entirely separate and unknown to the above editor, and I have evidence of serious abuses of the website which can only have been done by someone with webmaster powers.--86.163.121.179 (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If you can fine third party cites to back that up then fine - go for it and we'll take a look at them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as it took seven months to add weight to the thread starter's initial concerns, let's be patient, shall we? --86.163.121.179 (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually see any weight being added to the thread starters initial "concerns". Afaik there is no evidence of this wiki article having been significantly edited by the webmasters (or moderators for that matter) of Urban. I'm sure the edit history will demonstrate the range of editors - a range which would take significant sock-puppetry to imagine were one editor. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The 'added weight' = the addition of critical content re urban 75, which seemed somewhat lacking, even here on the Talk page. It doesn't necessarily require urban 75 'sock-puppetry' to achieve that effect - just the usual ill-informed, conservative, Wiki editing.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have referenced critical content you want to add? --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Because of Wikipedia's singular and controversial policy re 'original research,' it's very hard for Marco Polo to correct general misapprehensions about historical China without risking offence. ;) --86.31.105.33 (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that he saw dragons there "with his own eyes", this can only be a good thing. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The particular 'dragon' concerning me, when I first replied to this section, was an urban 75 moderator/webmaster who seems to have suddenly removed wads of recent discussion over which posters must have spent hours.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like something to be included in an encyclopedia.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but you white-bread-world Wiki eds arrived at a rather misleading picture of urban 75 prior to my recent edits.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Inward-looking, abusive forum community

The article doesn't present a full picture of the nature of Urban 75 discussion forums while it omits to mention the inward-looking, abusive nature of the discussion community. While this is, of course, far from unique, if not the norm in public-access forums of this type, the article paints a picture of relative innocence which therefore seems misleading. The article describes particular cases where serious posters have become newsworthy, but it gives no indication of the unmoderated abuse which the serious newcomer is likely to get from the outset in this inward-looking urban community. --86.163.121.179 (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What independent sources have written about this? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Abusive public forums are a 'sore point' and therefore a difficult/taboo subject, but, like drainage systems, may have a coterie of academic or journalistic ponderers. On the other hand, the phenomenon being relatively recent, it may still be 'under the radar.' Independent sources are very strong on things like the dangers of meeting individuals from the Internet, but I don't recall any articles about abuse on public forums, and yet it seems rampant and evident. I found myself coining the phrase 'troll posse' to describe one common aspect of forum behaviour, earlier today ('trolls' do not, after all, have to work alone) but thought, 'Why am I even having to coin a phrase for such an endemic activity?'--86.31.105.33 (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that's because the links in those particular cases are documented properly whereas other cases aren't - so, for example, the way I've used it in my own work isn't documented and so isn't in the article. As above - find the sources to backup your claims or, preferably, take them to mods on Urban where they can be dealt with properly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As implied above, abusive public forums are a widespread phenomenon not confined to urban 75. This is not entirely 'under the radar,' as I mooted earlier - few 'in the know' would be surprised about it - but I am aware of no academic/journalistic studies of abusive forums and/or their effects on the participants. Your suggestion re applying to 'the mods' of urban 75 shows very poor judgment on your part, and you sound defensive in the matter, unless I misread you?--86.31.105.33 (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion about (or unrelated to) the subject. Do you have any specific changes to propose? --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was absolutely not 'unrelated to the subject' 'general discussion.'

As to what my suggested addition to the article would therefore be, I think it should include a nod to the louche, irreverent, risque nature of the forums, in a way that satisfies all without tarring every innocent explorer with the same brush. The article clearly does refer to the louche, irreverent, risque nature of the urban 75 website generally, but leaves it unclear and misleading as to whether, and to what extent, this goes for the associated forums.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In any case, you have now removed, via edit war, the suggested changes I attempted to make in the section on the discussion boards.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You misread me, I think. I'm not sure - feel free to continue this on my talk page though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline note in lead

I notice that there is a suggestion to take this to talk, so here it is.

For starters I don't think all of this belongs in the lead. Possibly the relevance re: politics could be - although I'm not sure that the reference really supports the point being made per se - if anything the reference is a quote from Editor which suggests that it's not about anarchism at all. Possibly the idea of declining page hits and/or influence might be - if the reference supports that. What I'm really, really concerned about is the use of an urban thread as a reference. For starters I have a significant concern about this meeting the reference criteria, but beyond that we're singling out one thread to make a specific point. What about some of the other threads that might make a counter-point? Or perhaps we should put in the argument that urban users have a different view of what constitutes a full english breakfast than other people? Or tell crap jokes? I any case, I'm not at all convinced that any of this belongs in the lead and, as I think DaisyGrubber also suggested in their edit summary, perhaps not at all. It certainly feels that the edits are being used as attacks on urban rather than really providing the balance required of Wikipedia. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)