Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:47, 20 June 2005

Trolltalk

This is the second VfD for this article, first was 27 April 2004 - 3 May 2004, effort to delete failed. See Talk:Trolltalk


Attention: If trolltalk is delete I'm gonna off myself with a shotgun. My life is worthlesss but trolltalk keeps me from looking too deeply into the abyss. Please take this into consideration when voting/deciding. What follows here is a suicide note should you decide to delete it anyway:
--

I'm sorry people, I just couldn't take it anymore. I leave all my meager possesions to my best (and only) friend Timmy. I love you mom, dad. Even though oft times were difficult I don't blame you for anything. I made a conscious and informed decision to end my life. I feel a lot of things went wrong in my life, but this isn't one of them.

See you on the other side,
Joseph
--

"since the community is rather small and users rarely get mod points. Also, Slashdot's editors don't pay much attention to what goes on in 20721." -- Then why should an encylopedia? Delete Afcassidy 12:48, 17 June 2005

Keep. Trolltalk is rather known throughout the Slashdot community. Slashdot editors don't pay attention to anything, as any regular will tell you, by the number of duplicate stories and the occasional brokenness of the website, like the search feature. -- claviola (talk to me) 21:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other more influential and important online forums have had their articles deleted. TrollTalk is not noteworthy enough based on those standards. Afcassidy 2:55, 18 June 2005

• Keep, the trolltalk sid: a) is the oldest continuously used thread on Slashdot, b) has the highest post count of any thread on slashdot, despite regular purges, c) if it wasn't purged its post count would be astronomical, six figures or more, d) is the only "hidden", user-created thread left on slashdot, and as such is a historical curiousity if nothing else. Notable. --Bk0 15:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. --W(t) 07:26, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 07:40, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --pile0nades 08:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• keep. You have got to be kidding me. Someone goes to the trouble of creating an 💕 and some clowns just see it as an opportunity to go around telling peope that their interests are not not notable. All this information on things I don't care about is driving me crazy! I must delete it! I'm not trying to troll here, but good lord. What is wrong with you people? Addendum 17:46, Jun19, 2005: I am not a sock puppit. I am a slashdot user (http://slashdot.org/~bit%20trollent) with a normal if occasionally trollish posting history. I am not, nor is trolltalk affiliated with the GNAA. Get over yourselves. --bit trollent 17:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment -- this vote was cast shortly after a "call to arms" was posted in the Trolltalk forum (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=20721&cid=12856190) asking for help to derail the VfD - you can expect many sock-puppet accounts to be created over the new few days for purposes of voting "keep" on this article. Trolltalk is affiliated with the GNAA, which has used sock-puppets, spamming, and intimidation to survive four votes for deletion, bragging about "defeating Misplaced Pages" (http://www.gnaa.us/pr.phtml?troll=gnaa-wikipedia) after each one.
• Delete. If sock puppets want to keep it, then it should go. — P Ingerson (talk) 15:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete—I've seen articles ten times more notable than this silliness that have been deleted. We need to stop having one standard for internet trivia and another standard for everything else. Everyking 15:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'Delete nn. — mark ✎ 15:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Del... I mean, keep, or er, comment, I guess, since I'm inevitably going to be accused to be a GNAA sock-puppet. I think you're all a bunch of retards. All of you who take this internet crap seriously. Honestly, what the hell? Go out to a club, get some woman drunk and have sex already. Trust me, you'll feel much better after you dip your shlong into a female creature for the first time, and suddenly, you won't care anymore if there's an article about trolltalk on your crappy internet encyclopaedia (which I've subtly vandalized in several ways btw, just for fun). Uh oh, but what have I just done? This comment is against[REDACTED] guidelines! Quick, someone nominate it on Comments for Deletion! Hahaha. Jesus. -- Who The Fuck Cares 00:01, 1 Jan 1970
  • Comment -- votes from anonymous users are not counted, also, everyone should be made aware that the term "female creature" is taken directly from the movie with a very offensive title (which I won't repeat here) which the GNAA is based around. The heroes of that movie have never encountered women before, and when one of them does encounter one, they all make a big show out of shouting "female creatures!" in shock and alarm.
  • Comment -- Why should we be aware of that? I can't see why anyone should care. MrVacBob 17:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment -- It is evidence that Trolltalk is part of (or at least strongly aligned with) the GNAA, a group that has abused Misplaced Pages quite extensively and gone to great measures to keep its vanity articles up and that has publically announced itself as an enemy of Misplaced Pages.
      • Comment -- There is no evidence that trolltalk has anything to do with GNAA, other than the fact that they both troll slashdot. By all accounts GNAA hardly uses trolltalk at all, other than crapflooding it when a GNAA member is insulted. Stop with the paranoid generalizations. --Bk0 20:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment -- Trolltalk/GNAA connection. Please review these two-thousand three-hundred sixty-eight comments and let me know what conclusions you draw from them.
          • Comment A counterexample to invalidate your point: the KKK talks chiefly about niggers, but they aren't affiliated with them. Thanks for playing though.
          • Comment -- Congratulations on demonstrating that GNAA members post on trolltalk. It is a PUBLIC forum, genius. Anybody can post there. By your logic, the dozens of forums that have been vandalized by the GNAA are also affiliated with the GNAA. Search slashdot for GNAA and you will find similar results. But that's not what this is really about is it? You people have a vendetta against trolls. Stop deleting perfectly accurate, valid and valuble information just because you hate trolls.
• Keep. User:Abortion 19 June 2005 Trolltalk is an informative article and not a troll. Why then, should it be deleted?
  • Comment -- New user, probable sock puppet.
• Keep I don't see any reason for it to not be there. MrVacBob 17:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep In retrospect, I believe that the trolltalk article should be kept. I'm sorry for any confusion this may have caused. Afcassidy 12:48, 17 June 2005
  • WARNING -- This is a fake vote not cast by Afcassidy but by the anonymous vandal 66.82.9.80 who has vandalized this page several times. Please check all votes carefully to make sure they were actually added by the person "signing" them and not forged by the anonymous vandal, who will probably continue this foolishness. Proof of vandalism.

• Keep it real now y'all
  • Vote by anon user 66.82.9.80 Celestianpower 17:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason whatsoever for it to be deleted. (See comments below) Babajobu 17:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep File:Australia flag large.png Cyberjunkie 18:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. silsor 19:48, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trollcruft, sockpuppet limit has been exceeded. RickK 20:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh come on, what is it with you people?? The slashdot trolling phenomenon and associated articles make for some of the best, most entertaining/informative reading on Misplaced Pages. The trolltalk entry is part of that. Why all this deletionist mania?? What's to be gained by eliminating good articles just because some people you dislike have contributed to them? Babajobu 21:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: This is an encyclopedia, a forum for truth and accuracy. These "troll groups" support the very opposite of truth and accuracy. I am not aware of any encyclopedia of any merit that suspends integrity and allows the publication of lies, nonsense, vindictiveness, and fluff, just because those things can be "funny". The fact that something is "all in good fun" (a matter of opinion) does not excuse any indiscretion and make it automatically acceptable for every venue. There are many appropriate places for anarchistic comedy but a serious and fact-based encyclopedia is not one of them.
    • With all due respect, you are absolutely missing the point and also, I think, compromising Misplaced Pages's mission. Of course we do not want Misplaced Pages to include "lies, nonsense, vindictiveness, and fluff". If the trolltalk entry contained LNVF I would support its deletion. But it most certainly does not. The article is NOT itself a troll. Rather, it describes the activities of trolls. This is a crucial difference, and, honestly, it shouldn't be too difficult to grasp. It's the same difference between an article on al Qaeda, and a piece of al Qaeda propoganda. Misplaced Pages would obviously include the former, but exclude the latter. Would you argue for deleting the al Qaeda entry because "Misplaced Pages is not here to wage jihad"?? Babajobu 21:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • While I think this article should go, I believe judging the merit of an article by whether or not sockpuppets vote to keep it is absurd, and such votes should not count. Everyking 21:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If an article's support comes almost entirely from sockpuppets, that's strong evidence that it's nothing by a vanity article created & maintained by the very people the article is about. Vanity articles can sometimes be hard to identify but the character & identities of the persons editing/supporting them can help to determine if an article's only purpose is self-promotion.
    • Yes. It might sound absurd in theory, but in practice any article that deserves to be kept on merit, won't attract sockpuppets because it doesn't need them. Only articles that "should go" will atrract socks supporting them, because they're the only ones that need them. It's a useful rule of thumb. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that's a crap rule of thumb. With that as our standard, we would delete every article related to Islam, the Holocaust, Ukraine, Sino-Japanese relations, and god knows what else. Babajobu 21:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point, but how often do serious articles about Islam, Sino-Japanese relations, etc. get nominated for VfD in the first place? And when they do, it's usually socks wanting them deleted for not supporting their POV. And then the corollary applies: If the sockpuppets want to delete an article, it deserves to be kept. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, I didn't realize the rule of thumb only applied when an article was already up for deletion. I thought it was a general way of determining which articles (in VfD stage or not) were worthy of deletion. Okay, so even in this more tightly circumscribed form, and even when we invoke the corollary you describe (in which sockpuppets are voting for deletion, thereby guiding us to "keep") we must still recognize the mutliple exceptions to both the corollary and the proper rule. For example, some articles go to VfD (new anti-semitism, for example) and have POV pushers and sockpuppets aplenty on both sides. In these cases we must invoke an exception to the corollary of the circumscribed form of the rule. It is at this point that I think we should realize that we're better off trashing the rule altogether, and voting not based on a dubious rule-of-thumb regarding how other votes have been placed, but rather according to the merits of the article. Babajobu 23:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • But this isn't a hypothetical situation with "POV pushers and sockpuppets aplenty on both sides". Is it? — P Ingerson (talk) 23:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• comment Oops, sorry. My penis isn't small enough to contribute to this discussion. I should like to point out however that you are all being trolled by the nominator, who also posted the comment on trolltalk about this vfd, keeps vandalising this page through anon proxies and vehemently replies to all keep votes with his typical "blah blah[REDACTED] is what I think it should be" bullshit. GJ.