Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Harry Potter

I did a Google search here, with the criteria "GNAA Harry Potter." All I got was the GNA UK (or GNAA UK, both spellings were given). Based on this, I do not think that should be in the article, since the GNAA are not the only people who were involved in leaking the new book out, and no fuss was given by the press based on my searches. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The GNAA said it was fake: http://www.gnauk.co.uk/gnaa_hp/. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It does tend to show their notoriety though, after all they are beginning to be accused of trollish things they didn't do. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, then we should have a section of stuff they actually did and stuff they did not do. Fair enough? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

http://www.gnauk.co.uk/gnaa_hp2/ <- this was hidden from public to stop any potential lawsuits before the book was actually released.

If it was hidden, how could you find it? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody know where their IRC moved to? Can be a source of information as to confirm if they really released it. Their IRC server has been shut down due to high costs, and should therefore be removed from the links section. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the GNAA have moved over to EFNet after Niggernet got packeted off the face of the Internet. --Jacj 15:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Surely it makes more sense to use the search string `GNAA "Harry Potter"` than `"GNAA Harry Potter"`? You get more meaningful results that way. --Jacj 15:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I got over 200 hits here, but some of them come back to us. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Notable organization?

Why is there an article about this organization? Is it really notable or is it only notable because of the attention they have been getting through Wikipedia? Why are you wasting your time feeding the trolls. IMHO, time spend on further VfD is not as wasteful as time spent on this article. --AI 02:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

No, because of the problems with the first few VFD's, people got tired of the VFD's. Plus, some of the stuff that the GNAA claimed they did turned out to be true. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverted

I have reverted Chocolateboy's reverts. The comment I made is accurate - I will block those who readd the Wikipedia bit on sight. This is an admin warning. I have put back the sig - I feel it is significant as those searching for info on the GNAA will often see their text sig and this will help them idenitify them. It is significant. The anonymity is a fact, therefore it is accurate to say that "it is not known with any certainty that there are any homosexual or black people in the organisation." - Ta bu shi da yu 23:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Will it be safe to say that the number of Members in the GNAA is unknown and also that some people "act in the name of the GNAA," though not members of it? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, there is at least one person on the IRC channel that seems to be homosexual, having witnessed several explicit references to his boyfriend. As for the blackness, I have no idea. Sam Hocevar 19:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course, there could be homosexuals in the GNAA, but we will generally not know that, and if someone does tell (knowing how this place works), we will state that it will probably not be verrified. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I know that. It's why I didn't put it in the article. Readers might be interested in learning about that "personal research" of mine in the talk page, though. Sam Hocevar 09:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

----

The comment I made is accurate - I will block those who readd [sic] the Wikipedia bit on sight.

No you won't.

We (the editors of this article), not "yu", will (most likely) remove such additions without descending to self-righteous and delusive threats (unless there's a consensus to keep them) on the grounds that a) VfDs are not notable (hence the lack of a VfD article in the main namespace), and b) Wikipedia is not about Wikipedia. We will certainly not assume bad faith, nor will we interlard the article with offtopic wibble about what you personally will or will not do if someone dares to edit the article. This article is not about you.

HTML comments are for TODO items that are disputed or mooted, not for things that have been removed by consensus (e.g. "The Gay Nigger Association of America article has been up for the most VfDs of any article that has ever been on Wikipedia").

The article makes it clear that the name is designed to be offensive:

The name itself has been designed to shock and offend and appears to have been chosen because homosexuality is still an uncomfortable subject for some, and the term "nigger" is a slang term for black people, generally considered a racist slur.

The whimsical, and apparently inaccurate, claim that "it is not known with any certainty that there are any homosexual or black people in the organisation" makes as much sense as the following conclusion:

McCartney decided that they should create fictitious characters for each band member and record an album that would be a performance by that fictitious band. [1]

"The name is misleading as it is not known with any certainty that the band appealed to lonely hearts, or that it was led by Sergeant Pepper, or indeed that any such band leader ever existed."

The statement is at best redundant, and at worst clueless.

The sig betrays not only a characteristic unfamiliarity with the article ("The GNAA has a signature which [ ... ] begins..."), but also with this response, and your own unfortunate history of copyright violation and original research.

And, as has happened before when anyone dares to challenge your ownership of this article, you continue to revert obvious (and utterly uncontentious) fixes in the course of your blind reversions.

chocolateboy 01:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The signature is not original research, it can be seen at http://pepper.idge.net/gnaa/gnaascoip.txt (scroll to the bottom). If everyone is still uptight about the sig, why not just link it from here? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is, but I suggest you follow the link ("scroll to the bottom") before pursuing it any further. As for "why not just link it from here?", that's exactly what the article does. [2]

chocolateboy 02:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I see the link to the sig. I added another link to the signature, which is either note 2 or 3. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Why?

chocolateboy 02:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Because I had no clue yall had a link to the sig in the first place. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

----

The comment I made is accurate - I will block those who readd [sic] the Wikipedia bit on sight.

No you won't.

Yes I will.

We (the editors of this article), not "yu", will (most likely) remove such additions without descending to self-righteous and delusive threats (unless there's a consensus to keep them) on the grounds that a) VfDs are not notable (hence the lack of a VfD article in the main namespace), and b) Wikipedia is not about Wikipedia. We will certainly not assume bad faith, nor will we interlard the article with offtopic wibble about what you personally will or will not do if someone dares to edit the article. This article is not about you.

Well, next time you revert, please check the comment. My blocking comment had been removed! Or perhaps you didn't notice that as you were so busy reverting? As for calling me a spammer, I am not and have never been one of those people. I highly recommend you read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

HTML comments are for TODO items that are disputed or mooted, not for things that have been removed by consensus (e.g. "The Gay Nigger Association of America article has been up for the most VfDs of any article that has ever been on Wikipedia").

The article makes it clear that the name is designed to be offensive:

The name itself has been designed to shock and offend and appears to have been chosen because homosexuality is still an uncomfortable subject for some, and the term "nigger" is a slang term for black people, generally considered a racist slur.

Yes, I am well aware of this, considering that I added it. In case you've forgotten, but you kept removing this and forced us to keep putting it back. I find it a bit rich that you are quoting my own sentence back to me, especially when you don't even appear to like it much! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The whimsical, and apparently inaccurate, claim that "it is not known with any certainty that there are any homosexual or black people in the organisation" makes as much sense as the following conclusion:

Ever read hearsay? Guess not. Perhaps Wikipedia:Verifiability? Guess not. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

McCartney decided that they should create fictitious characters for each band member and record an album that would be a performance by that fictitious band. [3]

"The name is misleading as it is not known with any certainty that the band appealed to lonely hearts, or that it was led by Sergeant Pepper, or indeed that any such band leader ever existed."

Uh... sorry? "The membership is also anonymous, so it is not known with any certainty that there are any homosexual or black people in the organisation." - if the membership is anonymous, there cannot be any certainty whether there are any black or homosexual people in the organisation! Logic follows:

1. The GNAA membership is anonymous

2. Anonymity means that outsiders do not know who you are, what you look like or what your sexual preference might be

3. Therefore, it is not possible for outsiders to know with any certainty that any of the members of the GNAA are black or homosexual.

In case you haven't noticed, but fictious != anonymous. HTH. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The statement is at best redundant, and at worst clueless.

Thank you for bringing you concerns to the talk page. It only took 3 or 4 reverts for you to tell us exactly why you decided to remove the material!- Ta bu shi da yu 03:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The sig betrays not only a characteristic unfamiliarity with the article ("The GNAA has a signature which [ ... ] begins..."), but also with this response, and your own unfortunate history of copyright violation and original research.

Hello? I went to the GNAA IRC server and asked Timecop what the copyright status on that image was. He said PD, so that's what I added. If they have decided that is no longer the case, then that is not what I was told by Timecop. Perhaps you are showing your own cluelessness? As for the sig, it appears on many of the crapfloods, etc, that the GNAA have unleashed and it would be useful for readers to see the ascii art sig. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

And, as has happened before when anyone dares to challenge your ownership of this article, you continue to revert obvious (and utterly uncontentious) fixes in the course of your blind reversions.

Well, that's rich. You've been reverting almost every edit that is entered onto this article since I've started working on it. So much for criticism about "owning" an article. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

----

Yes I will

No you won't:

Gaming the system is the use of Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy. In many cases, gaming the system is a form of disruption.

This is a disruption of Wikipedia operations but is not a breach of policy and should not be used as an excuse for blocking the user. [4]

---

My blocking comment had been removed!

For reasons that I expounded ad nauseam in edit summaries [5] [6] [7], on my talk page, and here, and which are obvious to other editors [8] of the article and indeed to anyone familiar with Wikipedia policy. It's clear that you don't check edits before reverting. This caterwaul makes it clear that you don't even bother to read comments before vandalising them.

I went to the GNAA IRC server and asked Timecop what the copyright status on that image was. He said PD, so that's what I added.

cf.

Ever read hearsay? Guess not. Perhaps Wikipedia:Verifiability? Guess not. [9]

As you're incapable of understanding a simple example, I'll give you a couple of "crass" ones: it would be fine, albeit redundant, for the Sex Pistols or Dead Kennedys articles to mention that the names, in the spirit of many punk bands of the time, were considered, by some, to be provocative. It would not be encyclopaedic to contradict this truism by fabricating the irrelevant "insight" that none of the members of the Dead Kennedys were dead or members of the Kennedy clan, or that none of the members of the Sex Pistols (with the exception of Sid Vicious in the "My Way" video) carried pistols. "It is not known with any certainty" that any of the members of the CULT OF THE DEAD COW worship dead cows. Strangely no other Wikipedian has ever felt the need to add such nonsense to the article.

That's rich.

Your failure to respond to any of the points made above with anything other than AOLisms ("Uh... sorry?", "hello?", "that's crap", "HTH" &c.), in stark contrast, is manifestly poor.

chocolateboy 20:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

That's crap, and you know it. It's also an ad hominem attack. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

----

That's crap [sic], and you know it. It's also an ad hominem attack.

To paraphrase Toby Ziegler: "Don't bring the Latin unless you know what you're doing". [10]

chocolateboy 23:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh, how are you not attacking me and not addressing my argument when you bring up "AOLisms"? I don't believe my arguments boil down to these. Ironically, your previous comment is an ad hominem attack. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

"Ironic" is another word that should be handled with care...

Leaning on the CAPS lock is considered to be shouting. [11]

If you don't know why "Uh... sorry?", "hello?", "that's crap", "HTH" &c. are eschewed in scholarly circles, then check the links above. It's a good idea to read comments before responding to them, just as it's a good idea to check edits before reverting them.

Believe it or not, neither the article, nor this discussion, are about you (this discussion is about your edits; the article has nothing whatsoever to do with you). All of your recent blind reversions (sentences are not joined with commas -> ; <- "Association of America" is a "term", not "terms"; and we don't menace Wikipedians with pseudothreats because we happen to disagree with them) have been revoked and opposed (by me and others) apart from the WP:BJAODN non sequitur referenced above which has been restored by an editor who, by his or her own admission, is unfamiliar with the article ("Because I had no clue yall had a link to the sig in the first place") with the following edit summary:

Most people who are not familiar with forums is that people can fake anything, so we have to state the exact demographics of the group cannot be determined [12]

If you or someone else takes the trouble to construct a defence that is a) parseable and b) responds cogently to the objections outlined above, then I'll be quite happy to "get my coat", just as I was when a consensus emerged that one of your earlier additions was salvageable. If not, then I will remove it just as I, or any other Wikipedian, would remove the statement "It is not known with any certainty that any members of the CULT OF THE DEAD COW worship dead cows".

chocolateboy 01:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Last message. Your "logic" is faulty (see above). I have made a cogent argument. The article is also not just about you. You, however, have made this personal - I find your comments to be inflammatory and have ceased working on the article due to your personal comments. I have better things to do with my time than respond to your attacks. Also, you are not amusing. "Yu" means means fish. HTH. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ontopic as always.

HAND.

chocolateboy 01:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

So you are trolling? After all, it was not myself who started with the "yu" arguments, and I have replied to your arguments. HAND yourself. Incidently, focussing on myself (Ontopic as always) is an ad hominem attack. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but no, I'm just trying to improve the article. Sorry to disappoint.

As mentioned above, you might try actually looking at the ad hominem article before invoking it.

Also: probably a good idea to avoid a) naming a thread "To ChocolateBoy" if you (mistakenly) think that personal means "personal attack" b) accusing an editor of "trolling" c) shouting at your fellow Wikipedians d) patronising your fellow Wikipedians ("HTH" (twice) - yes, thanks, that really helps) e) reverting their edits without reviewing them f) responding ("My blocking comment had been removed!") to their comments without reading them; and g) replacing threatening to ban anyone who disagrees with you with threatening to quit because someone disagrees with you (particularly when you're clearly incapable of doing either). Why don't you try editing without threatening anyone? I'm sure it's been a while, but trust me, it's quite rewarding, and you might actually like it. ad hominem does not mean using the word "you" (or "yu"), and neither "ontopic as always", nor "HAND" (one lame acronym deserves another), fall into that category.

Is there a page where we can register the shortest (and lamest) tantrum ever?

I have replied to your arguments.

You patently haven't. There's only one disputed point left. If you have a non-AOL response to this statement (hint: lose the "Uh... sorry?", the "HTH", and the flimsy whimsy (Madonna is made of carbon - that's not going into Wikipedia either) at your disposal, then I'm happy to hear it:

If not, then I will remove it just as I, or any other Wikipedian, would remove the statement "It is not known with any certainty that any members of the CULT OF THE DEAD COW worship dead cows".

chocolateboy 03:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Also: probably a good idea to avoid a) naming a thread "To ChocolateBoy" if you (mistakenly) think that personal means "personal attack" b) accusing an editor of "trolling" c) shouting at your fellow Wikipedians d) patronising your fellow Wikipedians ("HTH" (twice) - yes, thanks, that really helps) e) reverting their edits without reviewing them f) responding ("My blocking comment had been removed!") to their comments without reading them; and g) replacing threatening to ban anyone who disagrees with you with threatening to quit because someone disagrees with you (particularly when you're clearly incapable of doing either). Why don't you try editing without threatening anyone? I'm sure it's been a while, but trust me, it's quite rewarding, and you might actually like it. ad hominem does not mean using the word "you" (or "yu"), and neither "ontopic as always", nor "HAND" (one lame acronym deserves another), fall into that category.

a) it was directed at you because you kept reverting. I wasn't attacking you. b) I didn't accuse you of trolling, I asked if you were - you've so far managed to upset me quite a great deal c) you accused myself AND Squash of being spammers (because you didn't like the content) d) you have not assumed good faith on this matter. e) [13] you shouldn't revert and copyedit at the same time f) what are you on about? g) nice, personal attack!. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there a page where we can register the shortest (and lamest) tantrum ever?

Oh, fuck you. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)