Talk:ASmallWorld: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:59, 1 April 2014 edit208.120.3.159 (talk) →New Alexa Ratings ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:01, 1 April 2014 edit undoMostlyoksorta (talk \| contribs)298 edits →New Alexa Ratings Next edit →
Line 108:		Line 108:
	] Listen I'm not a technology person, I can just read what the site says. I also didn't start yelling and screaming and making accusations about fellow editors. Why not just let the facts speak and avoid all the back and forth nonsense, whatever the ranking winds up being it is a) not a deciding factor for deletion under wikipedia rules and b) clearly not blowing the lid off anyone's idea of notability whether it is 500,000th or 38,000th. There is basically no citation on the entire page that isn't a quote of the CEO hyping her product within a month of it's relaunch. And almost all of the edits of the page were created by an IP address about a week before asmallworld's relaunch in 2013. It screams advertising and marketing. I don't understand what argument there is against that. Outside of accusations against editors what basis do you have for believing asmallworld is a)not advertising and b)of relevant notability? (] (]) 01:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC))		] Listen I'm not a technology person, I can just read what the site says. I also didn't start yelling and screaming and making accusations about fellow editors. Why not just let the facts speak and avoid all the back and forth nonsense, whatever the ranking winds up being it is a) not a deciding factor for deletion under wikipedia rules and b) clearly not blowing the lid off anyone's idea of notability whether it is 500,000th or 38,000th. There is basically no citation on the entire page that isn't a quote of the CEO hyping her product within a month of it's relaunch. And almost all of the edits of the page were created by an IP address about a week before asmallworld's relaunch in 2013. It screams advertising and marketing. I don't understand what argument there is against that. Outside of accusations against editors what basis do you have for believing asmallworld is a)not advertising and b)of relevant notability? (] (]) 01:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
	:I you help to rewrite the article - instead, you did choose to continue your edit warring. Most of the content you have added is ] and ]. Please note the ], which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted; i.e. "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made" (often called the ]).<p>I am asking you now, ]: did you do any recent IP or the edits? It is not too difficult to find out - see: ] --] (]) 02:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)		:I you help to rewrite the article - instead, you did choose to continue your edit warring. Most of the content you have added is ] and ]. Please note the ], which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted; i.e. "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made" (often called the ]).<p>I am asking you now, ]: did you do any recent IP or the edits? It is not too difficult to find out - see: ] --] (]) 02:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
	<p> I am not the same person as ], though it is rather intimidating to me that you are barreling through my privacy, but I spoke to ] and will you let you know that I know that person. We did discuss edits together, which as far as I know is ok. ] will stay out the deletion debate if that makes you happy? As for any IP address, as you can tell we are both new to this so maybe someone forgot to log on? Anyway, I hope that ends the belligerent Sherlock Holmes part of this discussion, and we can focus on whether or not the 500,000th/38,000th most important site on the internet, which is plagued with advertising material and non-neutral should stay on Misplaced Pages. It's pretty simple. Thanks (] (]) 10:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC))		<p> I am not the same person as ], though it is rather intimidating to me that you are barreling through my privacy, but I spoke to ] and will you let you know that I know that person. We did discuss edits together, which as far as I know is ok. ] will stay out the deletion debate if that makes you happy? As for any IP address, as you can tell we are both new to this so maybe someone forgot to log on, we're on public computers sometimes? Anyway, I hope that ends the belligerent Sherlock Holmes part of this discussion, and we can focus on whether or not the 500,000th/38,000th most important site on the internet, which is plagued with advertising material and non-neutral should stay on Misplaced Pages. It's pretty simple. Thanks (] (]) 11:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)).

Revision as of 11:01, 1 April 2014

Websites: Computing Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Pending, 31 March 2014, see discussion.
Procedural Close, 31 March 2014, see discussion.
Keep, 22 November 2005, see discussion.

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. Owen× ☎ 23:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me...?

I, for one, find the entire concept of such a website to be incredibly offensive. Anyone else agree?

Believe it or not, excluding people can be useful sometimes; on LiveJournal, for example, it gives you a lot of control over privacy which makes writing a blog much more enjoyable. But in this case, I have to agree that this network is more snobbish than it is useful. From the Gawker articles, I gather that it's mainly used for talking about uber-exclusive locations that the members don't want "lay people" to know about. Its members aren't so much celebrities who value their privacy, as much as no-name upper crust characters who have inherited a lot of money and want to feel like they're part of the in-crowd (half of the members cited in news reports didn't have Misplaced Pages articles). Ashibaka tock 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahh... validation of my opinion. Thanks. NorphTehDwarf 05:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much spot on - I was a member, and decided that it was a load of crap - mostly nouveau or inheritance-kiddies. It used to be a very useful resource, but it's now a bloated mass of creme (or scum - both float on top of liquids). --MAdaXe 14:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Neat, could you give us a better screenshot? Ashibaka tock 02:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That probably violates some bit of legalism or something. I wonder if SA might end up putting some of this on the Weekend Web. That'd truly be magnificent. NorphTehDwarf 05:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We have a special tag for it, {{web-screenshot}}. Ashibaka tock 19:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, excluding people can be useful. However, this entry is an obvious case of shameless self promotion. People arguing about the concept is probably just what was intended.

(1) Invite some celebrities. (2) Start a controversy to increase awareness.

Ads should be deleted.

This is more than an ad, it has 100,000 members or so. Ashibaka tock 22:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

i hope this site gets hack to bits someday. Owwmykneecap 04:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been said that one of the main reason for the creation of aSmallWorld is to provided it's 50 year old owner Erik Wachmeister and his close associates access to young women and to celebrities parties.

Why would you want to converse with such snobs anyway? XdiabolicalX 12:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's useful. You can actually safely meet with the people on it (would you invite a myspace stranger out to dinner?). In addition, because members share certain taste, their recommendations are more relevant to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.132.242.1 (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Erik Wachtmeister's father

Who is he?--MoMo the Pirate 19:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem reference

This reference is not valid from its appearance. It appears to be a wiki that anyone can create an account login, and edit. Other wikis cannot be used as references here on wikipedia. They are unreliable sources, see WP:V and WP:RS. Does this website operate different than it appears?--Crossmr 23:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems like it is not an open wiki; it is restricted to owners of a certain book about SNSes. Also, it was last updated in July 2005, which is when the author of the site, David Teten, received the information about aSmallWorld from its owner. So, I believe we can attribute this information directly to him rather than the wiki. Ashibaka tock 21:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I downloaded the book and signed up, and I discovered that the following message is at the bottom of the wiki page when you login:

"Locked Page | Help | Home | Recent Changes"

So, this isn't a wiki after all, it was written by David Teten. Ashibaka tock 21:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There are two different logins there. A corporate profile wiki, and a readers login. I wonder if its editable if you have a corporate profile account.--Crossmr 22:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

List of social networking websites on AfD

List of social networking websites is currently a candidate for deletion. You are invited to partake in the discussion.--Crossmr 14:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not notable

Can someone please explain how a site ranked 900,000+ in Alexa and with only 2 sources is on wikipedia? This article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Yuniti , draft: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Marquinho/Yuniti_(draft)

Was deleted despite being in the top 200,000 site in Alexa and having 5+ sources Marquinho Marquinho (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be citing press releases and web industry blogs, rather than news media and society blogs. Shii (tock) 17:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A Big World

I don't understand "A Big World". Is it a limited version of ASmallWord? Is it just a void space? Can exiles be readmitted? --Error (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Alexa rank

I have updated, i.e. corrected the alexa rank: ca 620,000 ranks up: from 658,892 → 38,861.

Please note that the previous version provided a link to the "asmallworld.net", the website before its mid-2013 relaunch as "asmallworld.com". That's the reason why the ranking dropped from below 10,000 (in August 2012) to above 550,000 (in August 2013).

Currently, "asmallworld.com" is ranked 38,861 --IIIraute (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring, sockpuppets, WP:OR & WP:SYNTH, proposed deletion of article

The WP:SYNTH and WP:OR content that was recently added by 67.80.233.89, e.g. here and here - and reverted by User:Coasterlover1994 here, was restored again through consistent edit warring by User:Faceplant2020 and User:Mostlyoksorta.

Later on the IP returned with the proposal to delete the article - this proposal was reinforced by User:Mostlyoksorta.

The article is now nominated for deletion; see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ASmallWorld. --IIIraute (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Response to Edit Warring, etc. Claims

I have put the page up for deletion. No other people, no sockpuppets or whatever have commented or voted on the deletion as far as I can see. The page is ranked lowly on Alexa, only has citations to the CEO advertising the company, has been on an advertising warning for years, and has also been thought relevant for deletion/G11 for years. I am not waring, I do not understand why edits are getting deleted by IIIraute when they cite the same sources or more independent sources than those that IIIraute replaces them with? In fact, IIIraute, deleted one source in the 'Controvesy' section while leaving the SAME EXACT SOURCE to support advertising claims earlier in the page (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

New Alexa Ratings

A bot has replaced the faulty Alexa rankings put up by IIIraute - the ranking again drops below 500,000. I am confused why IIIraute is making accusations when only editing in a non-neutral manner? Is IIIraute employed by asmallworld to monitor their page, a member of the site, what is the reason for the non-neutral (and apparently false in the case of Alexa) editing? (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

Get real. --IIIraute (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

IIIraute Listen I'm not a technology person, I can just read what the site says. I also didn't start yelling and screaming and making accusations about fellow editors. Why not just let the facts speak and avoid all the back and forth nonsense, whatever the ranking winds up being it is a) not a deciding factor for deletion under wikipedia rules and b) clearly not blowing the lid off anyone's idea of notability whether it is 500,000th or 38,000th. There is basically no citation on the entire page that isn't a quote of the CEO hyping her product within a month of it's relaunch. And almost all of the edits of the page were created by an IP address about a week before asmallworld's relaunch in 2013. It screams advertising and marketing. I don't understand what argument there is against that. Outside of accusations against editors what basis do you have for believing asmallworld is a)not advertising and b)of relevant notability? (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

I did offer you help to rewrite the article - instead, you did choose to continue your edit warring. Most of the content you have added is original research and synthesis. Please note the Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted; i.e. "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made" (often called the status quo ante).

I am asking you now, Mostlyoksorta: did you do any recent IP or the User:Faceplant2020 edits? It is not too difficult to find out - see: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations --IIIraute (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not the same person as Faceplant2020, though it is rather intimidating to me that you are barreling through my privacy, but I spoke to Faceplant2020 and will you let you know that I know that person. We did discuss edits together, which as far as I know is ok. Faceplant2020 will stay out the deletion debate if that makes you happy? As for any IP address, as you can tell we are both new to this so maybe someone forgot to log on, we're on public computers sometimes? Anyway, I hope that ends the belligerent Sherlock Holmes part of this discussion, and we can focus on whether or not the 500,000th/38,000th most important site on the internet, which is plagued with advertising material and non-neutral should stay on Misplaced Pages. It's pretty simple. Thanks (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)).

Categories: