Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gay Nigger Association of America

Mistakenly posted on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gay Nigger Association of America. – Extraordinary Machine 14:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Should be reconsidered for FA statues and front page, as the recent article Cool (song) has lowwered standards. - JeffBurdges 12:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

AfD

This article has been on AfD 7 times already, each time it was kept. Stop wasting all our time. I have reverted and protected because this is clear disruption. I will list this on WP:PROT, note this on WP:AN/I and leave a note on User:Jimbo Wales page. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the last time an AFD discussion ran to conclusion on this page, the result was clearly "no consensus", to either keep or delete. The last AFD and the one you just closed were closed early. Unless there is a consensus to keep an article I don't really see what's "disruptive" about relisting it. Demi ^T/_C 20:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Guess you've never had to admin the AfD for this article. You try it. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Silly, perhaps, but not really disruptive. Those that wish to ignore the Afd are free to do so. Friday (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

And that's the whole point. This is deletion by attrition. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Eh, I agree with Demi. WikiFanatic 23:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ta bu shi da you. I've voted keep on this article many times. Please consult the previous nominations for my reasoned views on it. This time, I'm considering voting delete. If it's deleted, I intend to recreate it 8 times with different content each time. Given the article's treatment on AfD so far, I dare anyone to call me on WP:POINT in that event... — David Remahl 00:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I like 7, its prime, keep it that way. GNAA isn't going to be deleted, not this decade anyway. More AfDs only discredit Wikipedia's notion of consensus.

Here is a "modest proposal" for an AfD gidline which should fairly resolve the AfD by attrition issue:

If an article passes 5 AfDs, allow keep voters to cut&paste good keep votes from past AfDs, and pseudo-count them if the original voter never changed their mind in a later AfD.

AfDs are supposed to be a conversation, not just majority rule, so it makes sence to quote old votes, and give them "some" official weight. Ideally, the original author of that vote should drop by & endorse it, for it to have full weight, but if they don't find the AfD in time, people should still weigh the old argument.

Or you could just trust that people will just inherently vote keep after too many AfDs, which seems to have worked thus far. JeffBurdges 03:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources?

This may well be an exceedingly unpopular suggestion, but what do people say to removing whatever isn't backed up by reliable sources? Specifically, I don't see how forums are reliable sources. I know, this article is about an Internet-thing, so some may say any website is automatically a good source. So far I'd disagree with that tho- I don't see a good reason to abandon normal standards just for this article. Thoughts? Friday (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Anything can be written on an Internet forum; it's not a reliable source. A news website, or well-regarded blog, is a reliable source. Ashibaka tock 01:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It should not be removed, but it should be "langauge sanitized." If a particular part is a load of crap / hyperbole, one might find out that "langauge sanitization" deletes it, but one should have the goal of keeping information presented it.. and one should feel sad when one fails to do so.. otherwise you might not be reading the sources adequately. JeffBurdges 02:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Controversial" tag

Because of the extreme amount of dispute on this article (even by Wikipedia standards) I propose we add Teplate:Controversial right on the front of the article. No other article has inspired so many deletion attempts as well as good-faith Featured Article debates. "Please check the talk page before making any major changes" doesn't help when the notice is on the talk page itself. In this case I don't think the template would be inappropriate on the actual article. This might also cut down on the clueless VfD attempts. Any thoughts? --TexasDex 02:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we could give it a prize for surviving soo many VfDs too?  :) JeffBurdges 17:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I found the ContraSub template, which is meant for in-article use. I'll insert that, although I don't know why we have two separate templates for talk pages and articles. --TexasDex 05:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Archive

Mediawiki is now warning about the size of this page. I would archive it myself but I don't know if should be done manually, whether it's an admin job, etc. Please archive it and advise me for future reference. --kingboyk 03:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The instructions are right here. I'll do it now, but that's for future reference. --TexasDex 05:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thank you. --kingboyk 08:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GNAA deletion policy

I'm trying to formulate a policy for repeat AFD nominations at Wikipedia:GNAA deletion policy. Feel free to contribute. Firebug 03:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The community rejected this policy as instruction creep, which is a valid objection IMHO. But this does not prevent "general concensus" from effectively enforcing the same policy on the GNAA page. Jimbo vaguely suggested trying to delete GNAA exactly once per year. So why not just follow this suggestion without the instruction creep? I recommend adding the following text to the top of this page, just under the list of VfDs:

December 15th is GNAA AfD day. The poor admins who must manage GNAA's potentially numerous AfDs will very probably speedy keep GNAA AfDs on any day besides December 15th. Such speedy keep are likely to survive challenges on Wikipedia:Deletion review too. A proper AfD procedure for GNAA is planned for December 15th, 2006. See you there!

Thoughts? No policy rules, just a statment of probable admin behavior. It reinforces its non-policyness by mentioning that such actions are subject to ordinary deletion review. And setting a date should make everyone happy. This should not impact the poll, as speedy keeps presumably count towards the poll. BTW, no polls respondents guessed December 2007. JeffBurdges 16:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

People should nom it whenever they like, as long as they recognize that admins hate seeing this page on AfD. Ashibaka tock Save our rectangular corners! 00:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Dremel Incident

"The Dremel website incident happened on October 31, 2004 and featured a pumpkin carving kit for Halloween and linked to a Goatse pumpkin image as an example of what could be achieved. GNAA members then added their logo to the pumpkin image, leading visitors to think the GNAA had hacked the Dremel website."

That's not how it went down. The dremel website was hacked by a third party after a link to the Dremel Pumpkin Carving Kit was posted on Slashdot. However, the image they linked to just happened to be on a server owned by a GNAA affiliate. We added the GNAA logo to the image, to create the effect that the website had been comprimised by us. We, however, did not actually do this. We do not know who did.

If no one has any objections, I will correct the article.

I am sure you can source this by timestamps on Slashdot posts.

--GNAA Staos 01:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

merge proposal

Last Measure did not create GNAA; GNAA created Last Measure. Merging is counterintuitive.

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 21:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Un-researched speculation

'The internal structure of the GNAA is unclear and some argue that they have no real structure or actual members; business is conducted in a public IRC channel and those acting in its name may simply be individuals working under the GNAA "banner".'

I changed this the "secret" to "a public IRC channel", but this sentence still feels like crap added just to weaken the article. It (outside of my change) is pure speculation, and obviously whoever added it had no information to go on. Would have deleted already but for a way to not leave a big hole. Shall I go ahead and remove it? 24.255.11.232

Yes. It's unsourced, and probably an original opinion. Ashibaka tock 05:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: similar problem, the description "psuedo-organization". More crap added to weaken the article. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America&diff=37535516&oldid=37535431 It seems a wannabe-admin wishes to participate in bad-faith edits. Keep an eye out, this looks like it may degenerate into a puerile edit war. 24.255.11.232 04:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

afd mark two

Can I please nominate this for AFD? Groups like this only spam and troll to get attention and this wikipedia article is rewarding them for their efforts.--God of War 23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No you can't. --blackman 00:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, GoW, don't go there. Ashibaka tock 06:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No. No, no, no, no, no. It's been discussed to death, and the general consensus is that you'll have to wait, at least till around 2007, before anybody will take an AfD nomination on this article even remotely seriously. It's been tried so many times before that most of the people who watch this article will remove AfDs on sight, and rightly so. --TexasDex 07:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Every time this article gets an AFD, it survives and just encourages the trolls. ZachPruckowski 17:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Arguably many of our articles increase exposure for groups who don't deserve it. That's a negative side effect of any complete and informative encyclopedia that we just have to deal with. After all, if we don't discuss the GNAA from a neutral point of view, who else will? Deco 02:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Geeze, all the alleged references are attempts at press releases, IRC logs and forum pages. These are not even close to being good sources. How are we supposed to check any of these claims? Oh yeah... through original research. That this article remains amazes me. It is utterly unverifiable. --W.marsh 18:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Where else would one go for references on GNAA? The New York Times? Washington Post? The Economist? What kind of sources do you want? --dj28 18:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good sources, like I said. That none apparantly exist says a whole lot about whether or not a topic should be in Wikipedia... we shouldn't start doing original research on this one topic just because a bunch of people apparently feel like it. --W.marsh 19:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

None of it is original research. Surely you don't want us to go through wikipedia and list supposedly "good" articles with no "good" sources, do you? Many "good topics" exist without references in old print papers. You're just using this as an excuse to undermine this article which has survived many afd attempts. --dj28 19:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's assumed that articles are written on information from good sources, references are nice but only really needed when a challenge comes up. So no, most articles out there don't need references since no one is questioning whether they're based on good sources. But that's not the case here. --W.marsh 19:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Good sources" are only needed when an admin has a grudge against a particular article. Please list what you consider "good sources," and we'll go through wikipedia and accordingly add articles which do not comply with your standards to AfD. --dj28 19:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Those would be bad faith nominations, most likely. Has anything approaching a reputable publication mentioned GNAA or said anything about them? Has even Slashdot (I think not [1]}? Until then, anything said here is really original research. --W.marsh 19:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

They wouldn't be bad faith. Each nomination would include a source link to your list of supposedly "good sources." Yes, slashdot editors have mentioned GNAA on several occassions. Is that the standard you want to use or not? Or do you perhaps want to change the standard when those sources are provided? If you don't think this article meets your standard, help improve it or nominate it for AfD for the 10th time. You can edit this article like anyone else. --dj28 19:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There are no slashdot articles, such as they are, on GNAA. I can't find any good sources for the article, which is why I'm asking here as opposed to just adding them myself. As for the rest, see Wikipedia:Verifiability is all I can say. If you want to nominate some articles that genuinely have no possible good sources, all I can say is that you'd be doing my work for me. --W.marsh 19:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I quote Wikipedia:Verifiability: Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable.

All of our articles are primary or secondary and include eye-witness accounts. There are not slashdot articles on GNAA just as there aren't any slashdot articles on many things. That doesn't make GNAA any less notable. Slashdot editors have mentioned GNAA. But they mentioned GNAA on blogs and irc logs. So I guess they don't meet your standard of "good." I suggest you have this conversation on all articles which don't meet your standard of "good." Also, I'm waiting on that list of "good sources" so I can try to add them. Will you ever list them? If not, what good are you doing by bringing this up? If you don't plan on helping, nominate it for AfD again. Otherwise you're not helping at all. Thanks. --dj28 19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh you're totally misinterpreting that, first of all you're quoting from Wikipedia:Reliable sources not Wikipedia:Verifiability. Anyway, that passage is just about understanding who a person giving information is, in a given account in a good source. Anyway, if you go further down: Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. Personally I don't thing argueing with you is accomplishing anything, so I'll stop, I think people can draw an appropriate conclusion from our discussion. --W.marsh 19:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It isn't helping. Tell me what to fix. Edit the article. Nominate it for AfD. Do something. Or did you only come here with the intention of bitching? --dj28 19:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Understand Wikipedia:Reliable sources and add a reliable source, then. Like I said, I can't find any, that's why I'm here. --W.marsh 19:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Slashdot editors mentioning or talking about GNAA should be considered a primary source since we can easily verify who they are. They aren't anonymous internet posters. In that context, it shouldn't matter what medium they post on. Further, many of the sources listed are primary. It is a log of the event in action. Tell me exactly what kind of source you want to see to verify the claims and how they would be better than what is provided. --dj28 19:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Slashdot editors devoting an actual article to GNAA. An actual article about all the things these logs of events in action that are apparently so important. It does matter what medium they've posted in. Despite all the self-aggrandizing, no one but Wikipedia has devoted actual ink or meaningful space to talking about GNAA. End of story. I'm done here. --W.marsh 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Slashdot devotes articles to a particular topic, of which GNAA is not a part of. Why would they devote an article to it? That isn't even logical. You are asking for something you know cannot be provided. It's clear you only came here to complain and rant. --dj28 19:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If no one cares to write an article about GNAA, as you admit, then by definition Wikipedia is doing original research. I'm not going to be goaded into doing the AfD now, so you can stop trying to troll me. Believe it or not I did come here to get the ball rolling towards finding reliable sources for the article. --W.marsh 19:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I assumed good faith at the beginning, but now I no longer do. See the past 8 AfD nominations for the rationale of keeping this article. --dj28 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The past 8 AfD nominations did not present any clear rationale for keeping this article-- to assist you in finding out why, I added descriptions of the outcome of each of them. Ashibaka tock 02:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It was kept because it was notable. If you find something wrong with the article like the other person did, please fix it. --dj28 03:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

W.marsh has deleted every single reference in this article, en masse, leaving an "Unreferenced" tag. First of all that's throwing out the baby with the bath water. There are working and valid links among those deleted. More importantly this discussion is not over, and I see nothing even remotely approaching a consensus on what to do about sources. I agree GNAA "press releases" are worthless except as evidence that they claimed to have done something. Slashdot links pointing to direct evidence of their activities are valid primary sources in my view, and there are other primary sources that I think are also valid. Secondary sources include the one presentation on blogging, which should be kept, and another opinion column. If you want to fix the references, suggest you just remove or fix links that are specifically 404, and state so in the edit summary. Then wait till this discussion is finished. --TexasDex 07:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

See below for a specific comment on the Slashdot entry. There has never been an actual Slashdot article about GNAA, as far as I can tell, and comments in discussion threads are clearly not good sources. The blog presentation link is really the only thing close to a good source, but all it really is confirming that indeed, the presenter saw a GNAA-related message board post. What is the opinion column you're referring to, specifically? --W.marsh 08:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem with the slashdot reference

Again, I quote from Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication. See Wikipedia:No original research.

Clearly that precludes the Slashdot list. It's just a list on an editor's profile... it hasn't been analyzed or even distributed by a credible publication. It's true that it's a primary source of some sort. But it really means very little... lots of people are on that list, with no real context to explain what it means. This kind of thing is exactly why such things need to be looked at by credible publications before they are good sources. --W.marsh 07:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't deny that some of this article is original research. The problem is that there is so little mainstream coverage of this group. The OSX86 hoax was mentioned on G4, there was the blogging presentation, and there's an editorial in The Scotsman (in the external links section) about how they are probably a bunch of lame white kids--and that editorial links to this very article. Slashdot obviously wants to avoid legitimizing them by running a front-page article on them--there are some geeks who have managed to follow slashdot without encountering the GNAA, likely by reading at a threshold of 3 or so, and they want to keep it that way. And of course most mainstream press won't touch the phrase "Gay Nigger" with a 39.5' pole.

The lack of secondary sources would imply that this subject isn't "notable", but this is, after all, "the encyclopedia that Slashdot built". A lot of the people writing this article have personally witnessed the events listed here (I myself saw the results of the shock-image flooding of the aimgirl forums; yet good evidence of that is hard to find) but there are no mainstream sources. Truth be told, there are actually an awful lot of wiki articles on internet phenomena, webcomics, and similar topics that are based almost entirely on original research, such as where the word "fap" comes from (Sexy Losers). Nobody's (too) offended by it, and nobody has a problem with it, so it gets no scrutiny. The GNAA, at least partly by having a name that is "spectacularly offensive" to quote the scotsman editorial, has created all this controversey, and all this scrutiny, and as a result the official rules are applied much more stringently to this article.

As far as what to do about this whole article, I don't know. The AfDs have spoken, and it's not going to disappear anytime soon--trying that crap again will make people want to kick your ass (as illustrated here), as well as make it be even longer before an AfD will be taken seriously. I think from an internet sociology prespective this group is worthy of study, and I think it's very worthwhile to have this article in the wikipedia (at least for the time being) because there is no other source that is as unbiased or complete as this article is. I think we just have to bend the original research rule a little, possibly trim down some of the claims in this article (although I think they've already been scrutinized very well), and just live with it until it fades away. Your thoughts? --TexasDex 09:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts are pretty much what I've said already. I don't think any unverifiable articles belong on Wikipedia, actually I have nominated and had deleted roughly 200 such articles. I don't think it's okay to start doing original research just because no one else but Wikipedia wants to bother looking at a given topic, in fact that's a key sign that Wikipedia shouldn't bother either. That's just how I feel, and it has nothing to do with offensiveness. Plenty of highly offensive topics get written about by good sources, if they genuinly have enough of an impact to make people care to write about them. --W.marsh 15:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree that this article stretches the concept of 'encyclopedic' a bit, however AfD clearly is not an option in this case, for what can best be described as political reasons. Furthermore we don't have a factual, informative, and useful article without bending WP:NOR, but we can't delete it. My best suggestion is taking a quick glance at WP:IAR, and asking ourselves what's the best we can make of this situation. As I see it the best we can do is make this article as factual and as unbiased as we can, possibly using some primary sources if we have to.--TexasDex 19:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I reverted your change removing the sources in the article. The reasoning behind this is because the sources would otherwise be non-existant, and finding sources that properly back up this article is difficult enough as it is without resorting to forum threads and usenet postings and whatnot. In any case, WP:RS is only a guideline, and is not a rule. I and I think other editors would agree that the sources you removed were "good enough" for the purposes of this article. If you have any comments feel free to leave me a message either here or on my talk. -shoecream 06:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Notice: it's probably a good idea to wait for the editor who reverted your changes to explain himself on the talk page before impusively hitting the revert button again ;) not everyone is a fast typist (or a fast thinker, for that matter) -shoecream 06:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why you should provide us with at least a preview in the edit summary. Rolling back without an explanation is really only appropriate for dealing with simple vandalism. --W.marsh 06:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, as I've said, I don't think we can use bad sources just because nothing else is available. That is clearly original research. Let someone else care enough to research GNAA, then we can cite them as a source. Original research should not be done here. --W.marsh 06:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Kuro5hin and Macinsider are not forums, to start with. They are both news sites. Obviously they're not CNN but Shoecream is correct - with a subject like this you can't expect the sources to be top news outlets and journal articles. I'm reverting the removals. Please point out specific problems with individual sources' accuracy, rather than simply attacking their credibility. Rhobite 15:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

W.marsh why did you revert my edits without responding to my request? Do you doubt the truth of these sources? It seems like you're just attacking them because they are web communities, with no regard for their usefulness as sources. AppleInsider is irreplaceable because they're a primary source - they credit "Gary Niger" for the screenshots after all. Rhobite 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

GNAA is not mentioned in the Kuro5hin story, but just in the forum below it, which falls under the clause I cited. Had it been an actual Kuro5hin story specifically giving information about GNAA, I wouldn't have removed it.

As for AppleInsider, that seems to be a primary source that is excluded under the earlier guideline excerpt I mentioned, "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication." The link being used as a primary source to support an original claim, but no credible publication has ever looked at that source... just this Wikipedia article, so it's textbook original research. --W.marsh 18:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask again - do you think this article is actually wrong in any place? Rhobite 20:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no way of checking at present except for original research, which is what this is all about. WP:NOR is a core policy for a reason. --W.marsh 20:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Article status?

Someone has listed this article as a good article. Now, I havn't read it, but by the looks of this talk page (it has been listed for deletion 8 times!) it doesn't seem like good article material. If this article's status and POV is so devisive between people that there is no consensus on the deletion, I don't think that this article is appropriate to be a good article. Further, its appearance is far from the title of good article, and I believe that this nomination was just a ploy to gather support for defense of keeping the article. Please, I am open to all comments on this! Thanks! --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 20:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to meet the GA criteria. Any further discussion can, per that page, be brought up at Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes. --W.marsh 21:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You haven't read it. That much immediately casts everything you say that follows that admission into doubt. Please debate this on Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes before stripping it of its GA status. Your belief that the nomination acts only to defend the article from deletion demonstrates an assumption of bad faith. --SpacemanAfrica 23:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because references don't meet WP:RS, missing references, factual accuracy uncertain due to lack of reliable sources... meeting these are all GA criteria --W.marsh 21:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You guys are awesome

I just stumbled upon Wikipedia talk:Kick the ass of anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007. It gave me some good laughs. - Hbdragon88 05:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The now-defunct WP:ASS "policy" page is certainly worth a read - especially for anybody considering nominating this page for deletion... - Marcika 12:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I archived that page just in case the history gets deleted, and because sometimes it's hard to find. It can be found here--TexasDex 22:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association Of The United Kingdom

Should there be a seperate article for Gay Nigger Association Of The United Kingdom and the whole Gay Nigger movement?

Warning: Some of the links on this site can cause undesirable scripts to run

YOU WEREN'T FUCKING WRONG.

GNAA bastards. :/

I bet you're the kind of guy who touches things with "WET PAINT" signs hanging on them. --Jacj 12:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Firefox users are usully under the dillusion that they are immune from malwares and popups. Jobbersy 19:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the internets. Foolish Child 14:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"Jews did WTC" notability discussion

For those who keep adding this to the page: please provide proof of notability here before re-adding. Without that, it will be reverted immediately and continually. --Kickstart70·Talk 00:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As a member of the GNAA, I would like to make it known that this website is an unauthorized bastardization and is not supported by all but two members of the GNAA. [Correction: one of them isn't a member] 71.146.1.11 06:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As an ex member of the GNAA, I would like to make it known that the GNAA is dead and that accepting monetary gifts from a kid and playing fair games on him is just sad. -- Femmina 07:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the external link to the above to attempt to reduce search engine spammer viability. --Kickstart70-T-C 01:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed link again from above. Do not abuse talk pages to spam external links. --Kickstart70-T-C 21:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You see, I could be completely wrong here, but im pretty sure that this website is activated by many young kids daily. Your use of foul language is unacceptable. Where's the editors now huh guys?

This is my first time on the site and im very keen on using it more often once I figure it out, but not if this is going to be the language level on here.

Why does "jewsdidwtc" redirect here?

I've noticed that jewsdidwtc redirects here, but it isn't discussed in the article. What is that term, and why does it redirect here? -- Creidieki 00:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Because some dorks^H^H^H^H^H people think it's notable and keep trying to include it in this page. The redirect should be deleted. --Kickstart70·Talk 00:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

GNAA AfDs

Seriously, this is getting out of hand. I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (16th nomination), Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (16th nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America 16, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America 16 as redirects and protected all of them so that it doesn't happen again for a short while. This is only temporary. Any objections?. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to spite you, someone should make Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America Sixteen. Heh. Good move. Xuanwu 04:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Due to the edit warring from socks that has ensued since protection was lifted, I've semi-protected the page. This is getting out of hand. --Heah? 04:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Any chance of a permanent sprotect? The amount of crap this page puts up with over a long period of time is astounding. --Kickstart70-T-C 05:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, permanent protection goes totally against the nature of a wiki. Should be on somebody's watchlist at all times. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree...it's still editable my anyone who bothers to make an account and participate in other ways for a bit. If I remember correctly there are other (official or unofficial) permanently sprotected pages on Wikipedia. --Kickstart70-T-C 05:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:SPP clearly states that 1) it is not to be pre-emptive and 2) it's not to prevent anonymous users from editing. Sprotection can go on for some periods, but it generally gets unprotected after a short while or so. - Hbdragon88 05:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Failed Good Article request

Without addressing other issues which may need resolving, this article it seems to me is nowhere near GA status just yet. It has a {{fact}} tag in place, and there is not a single citation until section 4 (which might be OK if there were article-wide references, but there aren't). Please fix your references and resubmit. --kingboyk 11:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This article's afd record is a disgrace to Wikipedia

• Looking through the logs of the various afds, it seems that after several no consensus votes, an admin arbitarily decided that the latest no consensus vote (78 keep, 55 delete) should default to a keep. After that no more genuine afd votes were allowed - they were all shut down very quickly by admins who said that the result of the previous afd was "keep" - when in fact, it was not and was really a no consensus vote relabelled as keep. And then someone even writes a new guideline policy inspired by all this saying that new nominations for afd for an article which has had multiple prior afd nominations can be considered as the nominating users selfishly ignoring the consensus of the community - when in fact, no consensus about this article was reached! At first I thought this affair was funny, but then I thought about it, and I actually think its kind of a sad disgrace for the Wikipedia afd process Bwithh 22:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

'timecop "allegedly" a Dattebayo staff member'?

Dattebayo's website (won't link to it for legal reasons) mentions the user timecop on many of its pages, and notes on the bottom that the GNAA is responsible for its site design. Dattebayo shows as example on some pages the banning of quite a few downloaders made at the discretion of timecop. "Allegedly" is putting it mildly... --Geopgeop 11:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Help!

People just keep putting this article on Afd over again. By the time it gets its 20th Afd nomination, please try to think of a way to protect it from more Afds. Georgia guy 01:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a notice on the talk page saying not to AfD it would help. I would like to get some more input on this idea before implementing it, though. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that. There's already a warning that deleting the article may not be the best of ideas, as well as a list of all of the deletion attempts, and it seems not to be working. --Jeames 20:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's too offensive and racist. The pictures are offensive. Skinnyweed 17:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious if hijackers22222 is a member?

I'm discussing An Incovenient Truth on IMDB and we've been discussing whether a particular poster is a bot hijackers22222.

He mentioned the GNAoA in this post:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/board/thread/44384486?d=45445821#45445821

which leaves me wondering if he's a member of the organization? Mathiastck 21:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

he is not

About the TwIT incident

I've listened to the podcast in question and there's absolutely no mention to the GNAA in it or on the TwIT website. They only mention a "kinda cute" "guy in the audience" who hacked into the wireless network before the beginning of the show, so the facts as described in the article are unverifiable. -- Femmina 06:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You're just mad because you got your ass handed to you in #gnaa.67.176.213.244 01:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for details on why that particular "notable troll" should not appear on the page. There's nothing personal here, no offense, it's just a policy. -- Femmina 09:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright status of Image:GNAA-kids.jpg

With all the oh-so-funny revert wars about the image caption, I think a more serious problem has not been addressed so far, namely the image's copyright status. No doubt some GNAA member will tell us he took the photo himself at the last GNAA meeting or some such nonsense, but to me, it looks suspiciously like a (presumably copyrighted) stock photo that was slightly photoshopped. If the source image of the photoshop job is not a free image, there's no way we can keep the image, no matter what kind of license the uploader claims. Unless it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the source image is a free image, we should delete it to avoid possible copyright problems (and as a side effect, put an end to these ridiculous caption wars) -- Ferkelparade π 12:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The image was uploaded by Jmax, and in the image comment it is stated that "The creator of this work has given explicit permission for use on Wikipedia's GNAA Article." Although I, too, can't determine if this is true, I still do not understand how the image contributes the article at all, whether it be photoshopped or not. --Jeames 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The image should go. Its copyright status is rather unclear. I'm going to contact Jmax, and if he hasn't got a story about where it actually comes from, I'm going to nominate it for deletion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my lack of speedy response. The image was made by a friend of mine who created it in Photoshop using PD images. --Jmax- 12:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Good. We can delete it then, as it is useless, and unencyclopedic. -- Ec5618 12:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Good? Wouldn't you rather it were useful and encyclopaedic? Stanfordandson 02:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It is useless and unencyclopedic. The uploader admitted the photo is not valid, and as such, it should be deleted. Good, clarity. I like clarity. -- Ec5618 15:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

New Attack?

Anybody been on freenode during the last half-hour or so? Seems like they got hacked, and now someone is demanding a ransom... sounds like something the GNAA might do. Well, if anybody's got any more information, I'd enjoy hearing it. Tmopkisn 04:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

resistance is futile! 70.48.251.7 07:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.gnaa.us/pr.phtml?troll=gnaa-freenet 70.48.251.7 20:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

freenet is not freenode. see bantown

Self-aggrandizing POV?

The phrase 'self-aggrandizing' has been removed several times for two reasons:

• It's POV.
• It's redundant, apparently because it's made clear by the rest of the article.

I'm not sure either of these reasons are valid. What POV is the 'self-aggrandizing' phrase pushing? It doesn't seem to be something either the GNAA's supporters or detractors would disagree with, making it unclear whether or not it's POV at all. It seems to simply be an indisputable fact, evidenced by, among many other things, the article itself as well as the GNAA's website. Also, if the statement is not POV, it can't be said to be inappropriately unbalancing the article by including the POV of one side and not the other; that the GNAA are a self-aggrandizing group is a simple fact.

Another reason given for the phrase's removal was that it was redundant. That might be the case, but isn't redundancy not only acceptable, but desired in the first paragraph of an article, which is generally supposed to act as a summary?

I'm really not sure why this phrase is causing so much controversy. Stanfordandson 20:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

'self-aggrandizing' is redundant. they are a trolling organization. a troll organization that did not advertise its own presence would not exist in any wider frame of reference than among its own members and would not be notable.

further it is POV. the entry on Madonna does not say "Madonna is an self-aggrandizing American pop singer, dancer and actress." Yet this would be an entirely accurate description of her activities. 'self-aggrandizing' suggests that the primary aim of the GNAA is to get publicity for themselves. yet it is easy to argue their goals are completely different - eg the 'War on Blogs', to shock people for political reasons, satire etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Via strass (talk • contribs) Stanfordandson.

I'm not sure I get your point. Readers of Wikipedia aren't required to be familiar with all of its policies and guidelines, and so it can't be assumed that they will know about the notability requirements, which are in fact only a guideline. Moreover, there are plenty of organizations which don't go out of their way to publicize themselves yet are still notable, and aggrandizing connotates way more than just publicity. Including 'self-aggrandizing' doesn't at all suggest that that's their primary motive. As well, there could be notable trolls or notable trolling groups who don't self-aggrandize, and certainly not to the extent and in the joie de vire manner the GNAA does. Indeed, many trolling groups and individuals try to obscure or hide the fact that they're trolls, which often makes their activities more successful. Therefore, phrase is clearly relevant and not POV. Stanfordandson 23:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally feel that it is POV, but also that it doesn't conform to the tone of an encyclopedia – it appears to be a deliberate insult directed towards the GNAA. And the very fact that it has been replaced so many times with famous proves that there is an alternative point of view. Foolish Child 15:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is utterly unnecessary in the first sentence of any encyclopedia entry. It has been put there as an insult and a provocation. Stanfordanson and other authors are trying to troll the GNAA. I think this is a silly thing to try and do, but it any case this Wikipedia article is not the place to do it. Via strass 16:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you know... that "POV" simply isn't an adjective? I wouldn't pedantically bring that up, except this is a case where it actually clouds the discussion. To say that something "is POV" is basically nonsense, and invites non-sequitur replies. If your claim is that the word "self-aggrandizing" is prejudicial, or biased, or gives undue weight to some particular Point of View (which one?), then you should say that. Simply calling something POV is like advertising that you don't actually know the meanings of the words you're using. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit war over "corporate"

First, please stop reverting one another.

Now, this is the sort of issue that has come up before. We have a name, given by the group to its own webpage, "GNAA corporate homepage". The meanings of those words, taken as ordinary common nouns, imply that GNAA is a corporation, which it is not. The argument for including them is that we're using them, not for their meanings as words, but for the identifying value of the phrase as a whole. For example, although it is somewhat misleading to call Duke Ellington by a name that implies that he's a duke, we do it anyway because people usually identify that musician with the name "Duke Ellington". I would submit that "GNAA corporate headquarters" is not a sufficiently well-known phrase to outweigh the potential misleading nature of the words. I think there's no overriding need for us to call it their "corporate homepage" when "homepage" would convey all the same information, without the possibility for misunderstanding.

Thoughts? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course - we shouldn't have reverted but should have taken the matter t the talk page directly. Sorry about that.

As for the "corporate", I don't think it makes much sense to take the GNAA's website description and use it here as a link description - it is misleading since the GNAA is not a corporation in the legal sense, and as you said, "GNAA corporate headquarters" is not a sufficiently established phrase to legitimize using it here. In essence, I think we're letting ourselves be trolled by the GNAA by including their misleading portrayal of themselves as a corporation in the article. Just my 2 cents - I won't revert war if anyone insists on keeping the link descriptions, but I don't see a real reason for doing so -- Ferkelparade π 07:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Censorship and dictatorship

This article should be deleted, but I have never had the chance to do that. How long is this ban on noninations going to be imposed? Forever? In my opinion the early keeps reflect early control of Wikipedia by small groups of slashdot types with no sense of proportion, but Wikipedia has gone mainstream. That is a hurtful slur and casually inaccurate. I would ask the orginal author of the comment to post an apology on my page for the upset it has caused me. Cloachland 02:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I find the allegation of bad faith is itself a breach of the WP:Civility. This ban is intimidatory. How long is it supposed to last? Forever? That is totally unreasonable. There is no knowing what would have happened if any of the recent nominations had been allowed to run their course and people had voted on the basis of their personal opinions (as opposed to deferring to this dictat. Cloachland 02:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact the article has had 20 AfD's and is still here seems to suggest it's staying, and any AfD's are just going to disturb the peace and result in a speedy keep/keep. I don't see how the ban is intimidatory myself, maybe you could enlighten me?

I have never voted in a previous GNAA AfD and would still vote a speedy keep, since they are a notable group across the whole internet.

The fact that they are trolls does not make this article any less valid, and I imagine any topic which has had this number of AfD's would have the same treatment. ShaunES 01:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC).

Notable Trolls

Apparently, after months of no attention, this section came under the scrutiny of someone who goes by User:Nunh-huh who decided arbitrarily to blank large portions of the section, claiming they were 'unreferenced' and 'self-referencing'. Comments welcome, as well as cleanups / referencing of the section. --timecop 13:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the sections were around for months could be meaningless, verifiability is non-negotiable. As to whether the claims are actually verifiable... generally they verify that GNAA logos were added to random images or sites, but doesn't really verify the claims the article is making about them (such as "leading visitors to think the GNAA had hacked the Dremel website" - the source for that is just an image that makes no such claims). --W.marsh 14:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

How are they relevant? Are we perhaps better off with a decent article, than with a large amount of fluff? -- Ec5618 14:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to chip in and help clean up! One way to start is by removing "notable" trolls that are, in fact, not particularly notable. - Nunh-huh 14:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

DDH

GNAA has changed it's name, for the latest see http://ddh.atomizeus.co.uk/. As you can see it is still under development, I've updated the logo to the latest DDH one and we will update it to the red version soon once a press release is announced on the web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebb11 (talk • contribs) 11:58, July 20, 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. The webpage you provided doesn't prove anything, and doesn't even mention of the GNAA. Let's stick with the original until we can be sure, ok? -- Ec5618 12:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

racism

How is it that the only mention of racism in this entry is about GNAA's statement that they do not promote racism? Can't spraypaint a swastika on a synagogue and say you're only kidding.--69.60.118.148 15:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you want it to say? Via strass 19:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

History -- Founder

I think this section should be improved with info on the founder, or at least who it was. Anomo 11:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

ED link

This page has been on my watchlist for ages, and I see that link had been on the article since this version, almost a month ago. I have readded it as I see no policy-based reason or legitimate reason to remove it. Thanks. rootology (T) 22:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct, perusing the history, it's been there for literal ages. It should stay. rootology (T) 22:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research". Even if it's been there for ages it doesn't mean it can't be removed. So I have removed it again. Mushroom (Talk) 23:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the reason for the removal because it is linking to a Wiki-based website? Because, by their nature, any other wiki linked to in this fashion except if the article were ABOUT the wiki site in question... would be an invalid link. Correct? rootology (T) 23:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Of course I think exceptions can be made when a wiki is of very high quality. But do you think every article should link to its Uncyclopedia or Encyclopædia Dramatica equivalent? That makes no sense to me. Mushroom (Talk) 23:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, only if the subject matter is relevant/related to it, and if a related topic exists. Just for ED for example, the "cross over" of topics found in ED relative to what is in WP is pretty marginal, so the handful of links that we'd have on WP shouldn't be an issue. I posted a question in regards to this also at WP:EL. I think labeling quality of a Wiki is highly subjective, however. rootology (T) 23:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but other larger wikis may have thousands of related articles. If we linked to all of them we would have thousands more links, and Wikipedia is not a link directory. I agree that quality is subjective, but there isn't a specific policy on links to wikis, so I think we should follow the current guidelines. Furthermore, I don't see how the ED article can be useful for the understanding of what GNAA is. Mushroom (Talk) 00:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I found it was added by Weev here. Anomo 08:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Large number of citation-needed tags

I've gone through and replaced many of these with actual footnotes where possible, but there remain a lot of them. Someone extremely pedantic has gone through here and spammed them about liberally, thankfully they seem to have gotten bored about half way through and stopped. I'm reluctant to just remove them but in my opinion they're making a mess of the article when someone feels every single sentence needs a citation. The article Hitler doesn't even have a single reference until the fifth paragraph of the second section. I'm aware of the need for sources but a lot of the 'documentation' about the GNAA is going on in transient media that's going to make these things very hard, not to mention the fact that their work will be frequently deleted and covered up by its underground nature.

Honestly I don't think there's much if any deliberate or accidental misinformation here, but keeping up this level of citation is going to be near impossible. Links to things like the ASIAN flooder did exist but has since been removed from their webspace so I can't refer to these places any more. Other requests for citation are just difficult to meet to a high level of specificity, e.g. that the GNAA have members from all over the world. Anyone can join their IRC channel and look at the hostnames to see some international country codes if they (for god knows what reason) believe this might be untrue and wish to check it, but this isn't really something that fits in a ref tag. As mentioned above also, the fact that their floods get deleted makes things like that they "often link to Lastmeasure" difficult to provide references for. Does anyone actually doubt they link to lastmeasure, considering they made it and host its homepage? Still, due to the nature of the GNAA it's difficult to provide an actual citation here because said links will be deleted by webmasters as they are posted.

I don't think removing all this "uncited" information is doing anyone a favour since it's something a lot of people could probably attest to and frankly obvious a lot of the time, but neither is it something the NYT reports on. I'm almost inclined to simply remove the most utterly pedantic of citations, e.g. the one on the opening sentence, not only because they're creating meaningless clutter but because in the big picture, I doubt their addition served any purpose short of intentionally trying to degrade the quality or increase the deletability of this article. Thoughts? --Rankler 20:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the point of Wikipedia is to publish material that we know is true, but material that has already been documented in reliable secondary sources. That's what we mean when we say Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it turns out. "Encyclopedia" doesn't just connote collection of true facts, but also carries connotations of reliability grounded in solid research. It's very tempting to bypass the whole research-in-secondary-sources bit with web related content that we can attest to because, hey, it's the Internets. That's something we have to fight against, and I would support removing any content from this article that can't be cited to a proper reliable source.

I think the real purpose of all those citation needed tags is to indicate to readers and editors alike that most of this article is a bunch of original research, and as such is in violation of Wikipedias core policies. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the fate then of an organisation apparently notable enough to deserve an article yet for which there are zero (or close enough to) citable sources that meet RS guidelines? I think holding an article like this to WP:RS is simply unrealistic, the rules therein are not universifiable enough to require strict enforcement without destroying a massive amount of potential content here and in other articles. Obviously there is a paradox of purpose here when we evidently want an article (as evidenced by GNAA's VfDs) which we cannot write. Is the solution to provide an article with less than ideal source attribution or a little stub saying we can't write about this because it doesn't appear in a published journal, but hey it does exist? Perhaps this is an ideological issue but I think it's better to break WP:RS and provide the article than to provide nothing. RS is well-intentioned but frankly doesn't reflect the environment Wikipedia operates in. --Rankler 21:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

An alternative solution would be to insist that Wikipedia is defined by its core policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, and therefore accept that Wikipedia is actually not the place for an article on GNAA, or on any other Internet group that hasn't been documented in reliable sources. Whether a sufficient number of people "want" the article and have managed to exploit the weakness of AfD until now isn't really relevant to the question of whether this article complies with our policy. You might prefer that the policies change (and there's a place to suggest that), but I would prefer that the unsourced content be hosted on some other Wiki, where different standards are in effect. There's currently a lot of tension here between those who want Wikipedia to document the minutiae of internet culture, and those who would rather hold to our founding principles. I guess it's clear which side I identify more closely with. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Should freenode #wikipedia flood and picture be removed?

My reasons for removal:

• WP:BEANS
• WP:DENY
• Self referential
• Not notable enough

Anomo 21:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Our articles must be comprehensive, even if it's inconvenient, so BEANS and DENY don't apply to article space. For the other two, it's an example; I agree that a non-Wikipedia example would be better, but this one is fine. -- SCZenz 15:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Added a small new section

Just added a brief trivia entry near the bottom noting that this article currently holds the record for most AFD votes. Jtrainor 09:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that's something we should broadcast. I wouldn't want to start some sort of partisan competition to see which article can be proposed for deletion the most often. After all, the repeated AfD's aren't exactly a point of pride for this article. Kasreyn 03:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The bigger issue is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a secondary source, and that its articles about their subjects. That is, the GNAA article is about GNAA, not about the article itself or about Wikipedia's treatment of the article. For this reason, I removed the section in question yesterday. -- SCZenz 15:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I didn't mean to stumble into an edit conflict (Note to self: stupid Wowbagger! ALWAYS read the history before editing!), but the tags were quite a bit overboard. Generally, the lead paragraph doesn't need them, if the statements there are supported in the main body of the article. And, in cases like where we refer to Last Measure, we really don't need a citation; we have a bloody article on the other end of the wikilink, after all.

I only removed the tags I viewed as totally ridiculous; I think most of the rest are uncontested and could stand to go anyway, but that's a call I leave to more regular contributors to this and other Internet-related articles. --BCSWowbagger 00:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically this article should be deleted.

Adter all, the mods have already taken down the Myg0t page, Myg0t being yet another association of trolls. The velociraptor 23:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you really feel that way, then feel free to put up a request on WP:AfD —shoecream 01:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes this page should be deleted. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure whether the page should be deleted, but it should definitely be put on WP:AfD. There hasn't been enough drama lately. 213.41.246.80 16:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No reliable secondary sources

I'm sure this has been said thousands of times, but I find it funny that this article has no reliable secondary sources at all. Blog posts and slashdot user pages normally wouldn't be considered reliable. --- RockMFR 06:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the party. You're 17 AfDs late. Now before you spike the punch, why don't you look over the rest of this page on the subject of sources?-- ABigBlackMan 16:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The arguments, where they are coherent, seem to be "But I KNOW this is true, so it doesn't need reliable sources!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)