Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 03:49, 11 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Markovian Parallax Denigrate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article was nominated for deletion on May 3 2009. The result of the discussion was delete.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Internet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Preemptively explaining a semi-major revision to the article.

I wanted to elaborate on this further to hopefully prevent any edit warring, and change summaries have a character limit.

• The Russian article is about the history of spam, not these messages. It is not a good source, it only very briefly mentions them towards the end and it's not even quoted properly.
• The sentence "Hundreds of messages were posted and initially dismissed as spam." doesn't have much purpose at all and easily be gathered through reading the article. The direct statement of there being hundreds of posts can be mentioned in the first sentence rather than being a separate, isolated comment.
• The Atlas Obscura citation for the quote "the Internet’s oldest and weirdest mystery" is directly quoting the original Daily Dot article. This is plain bad Misplaced Pages-ing, you shouldn't use a citation that's quoting your other citation for the same exact thing. Removed so I could directly credit The Daily Dot for the quote in-article.
• General cleanup. Some things could have been be worded and explained better, the given citations already have the information to provide more context to some of the statements.

51.37.62.75 (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I've deleted the citation needed tag, as anyone reading the citations already in the article can see this is a basic fact, it is uncontroversial and does not need its own citation. I also deleted the bit you added at the end of the Susan Lindauer sentence as I cannot find the text you've placed in quotes anywhere in the cited article with a simple text search. If she had said that, I do not think it necessary to include in the article. ♟♙ (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Readdition of Barely Social content.

It's the consensus that this content should be added and only a single user "EnPassant" is against the consensus. Please stop vandalizing the page and edit warring or action will be taken. 122.56.201.177 (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I am also against. See also Misplaced Pages:Meat puppet. Veverve (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

And judging by the reversion history, it's not just us. The 3RR report (containing personal attacks) the IP filed against me was a good chuckle, though. ♟♙ (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for **removing** the content? It seems like reasonable content to add, as its a well researched video. Content shouldn't be simply removed without a reason, and I see no reason given. I've added it back in a form that's written more neutrally.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fresheneesz (talk • contribs) 19:21, April 16, 2022‎ (UTC)

Someone who has been here as long as you should know to sign their posts and also that youtube isn't a reliable source. Please read the talk archives, where this topic was discussed extensively. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Readded the content with a reliable source. You're welcome : ) Fresheneesz (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks fine now, thanks. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I do love the fact that this EnPassant user got banned from Misplaced Pages for ToS abuse. YouTube videos can be definitely be considered reliable when they provide citations and accurate sources. An example of such are the video essays by LEMMiNO. The fact that this would even be a controversial point is just ridiculous. TMIfan (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Reverting "was" to "is"

Does the user "Veverve" not realize that the thing this article is talking about happened in the 1990s? Why did they revert the edit to make the article look like the subject is ongoing? 115.189.91.57 (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

is it not an ongoing mystery according to the sources? Veverve (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is not about "the mystery of the Markovian Parallax Denigrate" it is about "Markovian Parallax Denigrate, a series of hundreds of messages posted to Usenet in 1996." It isn't even close to ongoing the posts ended in 1996 according to the sources on the page 115.189.91.57 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It would be better to change the title of the article to "The mystery of the parallax denigrate" since all sources state it is a mystery and not a thing that happened 115.189.91.57 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

That is ludicrous. Please stop being disruptive to prove a WP:POINT. ♟♙ (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

We operate on Verifiability, not "Truth". Stop vandalizing my talk page by the way. 115.189.91.57 (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

If this is about a current ongoing mystery feel free to keep the "is" but if it's not about the mystery it should be "was" as this happened in the past. This is taught in primary school, Account. 115.189.91.57 (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

If the messages still meaningfully exist, which they appear to do, then it should be present tense as per the MOS:TENSE. Canterbury Tail talk 20:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

General improvements

This article has a number of issues. According to the original DailyDot article Susan Lindauer was already mistaken as the author of the messages by then. Not 2016 like the current article states. The current version of this article is also not clear about the fact that an email by that name was one of the emails used for this spam. It was coincidentally the email used with the only archived spam message, and not used for all sent emails.

I also think it is critical that this article mentions the few usergroups that were attacked. An archived message from the same usergroup that the last archived spam message was from has a list of attacked usergroups: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.religion.christian.boston-church/c/zmGKs6entow/m/7h_28WdE0nMJ.

The spam was clearly targeting christian usergroups.

Some of the sources in this article are also really bad. The original article by the DailyDot is where all other articles are derived from and is by far the most elaborate. The german wired.com source is especially bad, stating the texts could be part of a "chatbot"... LevitatingBusinessMan (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Start-Class Internet articles
• Low-importance Internet articles
• WikiProject Internet articles
• Start-Class Internet culture articles
• Low-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles