Misplaced Pages

Talk:Markovian Parallax Denigrate

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EnPassant (talk | contribs) at 16:24, 15 June 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:24, 15 June 2021 by EnPassant (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
WikiProject iconInternet Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternet culture Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on May 3 2009. The result of the discussion was delete.
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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

This is new stuff!

Needs major edits, we have concrete evidence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vboQOQwifwg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leepic11a (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Great, so a youtube video was posted by someone, and now a bunch of activists will be here to insert original research and POV. Thanks for the heads up. ♟♙ (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Daily Dot Article reference says opposite of page.

So, just curious, but has anyone actually read the Daily Dot article about this? It clearly states that Susan Lindauer, the ex-spy, was not actually associated with the email address used. Hell, it even goes on to explain that it was originally owned by a student at a university who had their account stolen. Hell, the article even surmises in conclusion, that it most likely was a Spam attack. (Which it was, since a quick search of UseNet for stuff from the very next day confirms this.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:4C00:74C5:7524:72E2:A306:20A5 (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to practice your reading comprehension. Nothing the article currently says conflicts with the source. ♟♙ (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
To quote the acutal article: "And besides, there’s another Susan Linduaer out there, someone whose email address was clearly used by whoever created the Markovian Parallax Denigrate spam.
There are so many articles about the Susan Lindauer who was arrested in 2004 that finding this other Susan takes some creative Googling. But it’s not that hard. Just start with that original Markovian Parallax Denigrate email address, susan_lindauer@worf.uwsp.edu.
UWSP stands for the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point. And it turns out there was actually a Susan Lindauer who attended UWSP as a graduate student in physical education. She graduated in 1994. I called up her former faculty advisor at UWSP, professor Rory Suomi, with whom she published at least two papers bearing titles like “Impact of Arthritis Foundation Aquatic Program Classes on Strength and Range of Motion Measures in Women with Arthritis.”
Though he wasn’t helpful in tracking her down, Suomi did confirm that this Lindauer was very much a real person. That means she attended UWSP at around the same time the other Susan Lindauer was living in Washington, D.C. and making trips to the Libyan Mission in New York.
Ultimately, finding this Susan was as simple as changing her name and searching Facebook. She prefers “Susie” and switched her last name to Mursau after getting married.
Mursau lives in Combined Lakes, Wis., and works in the local school district. According to her Facebook profile, she likes the Green Bay Packers, Chris Farley, and the MTV series The Hills. When I reached her by phone Friday morning and asked if she knew anything about the Markovian Parallax Denigrate email, she told me, “I’ve never heard of it.” And she certainly didn’t send it. (Nor had she heard of the other Susan Lindauer: “I’ve never Googled myself,” she said.)
So unless Mursau is purposefully hiding her past as a Usenet spammer (which seems unlikely, to put it mildly), she didn’t send the email that launched one of the weirdest mysteries in Internet history. More likely: Someone scraped her address along with the dozens of other academic emails used in the Markovian Parallax Denigrate messages, then used them to mask the actual address. It’s easy."
Personally i think that you don't need very good reading comprehension skills to understand the actual message that this article coveyed. Probablybrynte (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The article says what the source says. ♟♙ (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This is basically the old "Misplaced Pages article says thing is X. Source- article on site. Source on the article- Misplaced Pages article that says thing is X" problem. The video and the Usenet posts clearly prove this isn't a glaring mystery, but because neither youtube nor usenets are considered valid sources (despite the article's subject BEING a usenet post) but random clickbait news sites are, and the random clickbait news sites said "this is the greatest mystery on the internet" or whatever, Misplaced Pages rules on sourcing mean the article must remain focused on what's an obvious and glaring lie, since there's no acceptable sources to disprove it. Basically you need to get Daily Dot or something to make a new article reiterating everything said in the youtube video, THEN you can correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:F989:AC01:1DE1:2911:B3C3:D9CB (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you guys STILL on this??? The article is correct as it stands and the only thing "wrong" is what you're imagining it says. ♟♙ (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Youtube video

Just a heads up to editors and pagewatchers, a youtube video about this subject (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vboQOQwifwg) was released and it quite rightly pointed out glaring issues in this article and how those issues likely contributed to a stream of misinformation. I've removed that content. Any content added back that was removed should be discussed first as its clear the ill advised previous claims very well could have unnecessarily disparaged someone. People should also beware of random edits or an influx of ip edit requests coming in and page protection may be needed until the popularity of the video subsides. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah well if you watched the same video I just watched, it makes it clear that the article - as it was - in September 2019 was factually correct. But that was all deleted by the deletionist user called User:EnPassant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.33.113 (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Youtube videos aren't reliable sources. And the article doesn't conflict with the sources. Edits reverted. ♟♙ (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning User:EnPassant, not only do you not actually bother to check what you are deleting but you've also proved yourself to be very creepy. Not only did you not even watch the video? Simply dismissing it with a "Youtube videos aren't reliable sources". You also have the paranoid response to claim I am someone who I am not. Everything I said was based on the video; it shows the actual newsgroups where the info from these postings were added. You can still search for it using Google Groups! So please don't spout the old Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith line at me. Your own editing history proves you assume none. All I did was watch a video today that gave clarity in areas that this article lacks (in fact the video makes clear that the looping veracity of other published material is derived from this article). I also mentioned that the article contained more clarity until you showed up and deleted (you have even edited the lies back into the article - so what's your angle in all of this?). Then - as a typical paranoid socially backward wikipedia editor - you accuse me of being this earlier editor User:MattiasThatch. All because they are shown in the video. I just checked the article's edit history, which matches, balanced that against the video showing the search in Google Groups to the very same archived Usernet posts. And it's all there, it's all factually correct:
Etymology

The name "Markovian Parallax Denigrate" comes from a message posted on alt.religion.christian.boston-church by Usenet User Chris Brokerage (Likely a pseudonym) from the partially obfuscated email address "Susan_L...@WORF.UWSP.EDU" which appears to have originated at University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, however the majority of posts use randomly assembled names and addresses in order to obscure the source of the messages.

Newsgroups Affected

At least a few dozen examples of Markovian Parallax Denigrate text exist and are available to view on Google Groups, Google's archive of Usenet newsgroup posts. The following newsgroups were affected by the Markovian Parallax Denigrate spam:

  • alt.religion.christian
  • alt.religion.christian.boston-church
  • misc.education.homeschool.christian
  • pdaxs.religion.christian
  • rec.music.christian
  • uk.religion.christian
  • news.admin.net-abuse.misc

The general consensus of contemporary users of these newsgroups was that the posts were in fact a "Mailbox Attack" or "Letterbomb", which can be loosely defined as an early DDoS attack, wherein a user sends spam text to a newsgroup causing ISPs to meter or throttle the connections of affected users due to high bandwidth usage. Each message to one of these newsgroups would be automatically downloaded to a newsgroup member's computer, so high quantities of messages would, in turn, equal high bandwidth usage for all newsgroup users.

This is information that you deemed to be false. You don't Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith? You've reinstated lies. You're the problem here. But sadly to be accused of not showing good faith is a light on you, EnPassant, not me! 81.141.33.113 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Youtube videos do not satisfy the requirements of WP:RS and everything else you posted above is WP:OR. ♟♙ (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Novil Ariandis: is your edit the result of this aforementioned video? Veverve (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: how long should the editing of the article be restricted to extended confirmed users?

No need for this anymore
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Due to a recent popular Youtube video, in which this WP article and history are named (mainly at 7:48 and 15:10), an influx of editors came to edit the page with WP:OR. Those wanting to know the overall narrative of the video can read the GAB of a user who came to WP only to edit this article.
An admin recently blocked all non-extended confirmed users from editiong the page. However, the question remains as to how long this restriction should last. Veverve (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm tempted to put an early close on this. No responses in two weeks, probably because this generally doesn't need an RFC. This is routinely handled by admin discretion. If there is any further trouble just contact the admin that protected it before, or make a request at WP:RFPP. It looks like activity on the Youtube video has mostly tapered off, hopefully that's the end of it. Alsee (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Why was my edit removed?

Hey I published the edit of this page in September 2019 regarding the history and etymology of this topic, I went indepth on researching this for this article and double checked to confirm that what I was submitting was correct, I dug through Usenet for hours reading through posts and forums to see what the people at the time thought about it and what groups were affected, as far as i can tell, all of it was correct? Can i get an answer as to why why EnPassant removed my edits? I haven't been on Misplaced Pages in ages so I didn't notice that it'd been modified but I didn't go off the video you referenced in that earlier talk post, all my research was my own. Just to point out I studied it before the video existed as well? Can other editors confirm that my research wasn't incorrect? If i was wrong in what i submitted i am happy to correct myself but what i posted was to my knowledge 100% correct. My Edit in Sep 2019

Also, how am i meant to source this when there, at the time, was zero published articles that properly analyze this event? (Should I have linked the Usenet posts themselves?) While at the same time, some of the "Facts" on the article at the time were also incorrect however referenced sources which were themselves hazily researched at best? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattiasThatch (talk • contribs) 14:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your talk page posts. Usenet isn't a reliable source, so you can't use usenet posts as sources. For reliable source requirements please read WP:RS. And WP:OR isn't allowed. Please review the edit history as there's an edit summary that explains why your changes were reverted. ♟♙ (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
??? I am confused. Usenet, in this case IS the primary source, you are ignoring the primary source of the topic of this article, the sources cited on this article are speculative at best, and include false information??? I don't understand how you are invalidating the SOLE verifiable contemporary source of information regarding this event, that being the actual UseNet groups that experienced this event when it happened and discussed and explained what happened at length. Do i need to write and publish a book about this to add this correct, verifiable information to the page? MattiasThatch (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
You have a lot of reading up to do on our guidelines. Please start with WP:RS. ♟♙ (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Eh, don't waste your time. Keep people hunting around for a conspiracy to explain it when the obvious answer is in plain sight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.42.230 (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The policy-based explanation for why the edits were reverted has been provided multiple times. Learn how Misplaced Pages works, as well as what it is and what it isn't. When you visit someone else's home do you demand they change their living room decoration to appease you? And when they explain why they can't do that, attempt to force it on them anyway? Read the processes and learn and you too can participate. ♟♙ (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD

WP:BRD was not adhered to with this revert . Additionally, sentences previously sourced to reliable sources were poorly rewritten and partially re-sourced to blogs (fails WP:RS). The edit has been undone and before being reintroduced it needs to be discussed here and consensus reached. ♟♙ (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Article issues.

@EnPassant or Sulfurboy:

As written, this page seems like it should be classified as a stub, it's extremely short and by all metrics has no notability. The whole of 15-ish articles covering the topic (all written over a decade after the event) may provide the "presumption" of Notability as per WP:GNG, but I don't see the actual value of an entire page dedicated to this topic (WP:IINFO). Additionally this page meets WP:MERGEREASON 3, and perhaps WP:BONSAI.

I'm not sure if I'm advocating for deletion or merging, but one solution I've considered is that this might better fit as an entry at List_of_Internet_phenomena#Email.

ExampleDominic (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

ExampleDominic, Passes WP:GNG with flying colors. Pretty insane to suggest otherwise. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
In terms of coverage maybe, but not every spam incident on Usenet has a wiki page and for good reason. MAKE.MONEY.FAST had lasting impact, while Markovian Parallax Denigrate is a mostly forgotten novelty with no real impact. ExampleDominic (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
ExampleDominic, Not every spam incident on Usenet gets covered by multiple sources. This one was. Not having a lasting impact or that it's a forgotten novelty is subjective and mostly meaningless in terms of determining if this article should stay. However, if you disagree you're welcome to take it to AfD. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
ExampleDominic. WP:BONSAI is an essay, which is just one person's opinion on a matter. I disagree with the rest of your reasoning, and it doesn't fit as a merge because this wasn't an e-mail. It's really odd that people are so fixated on deleting or bowdlerizing this one article, which, as Sulfurboy explains, fulfills the requirements of GNG without question. It's interesting you know so much about esoteric Misplaced Pages essays being a brand new account and all... I recommend reading WP:SPA when you have some time. ♟♙ (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Barely social - spam bot evidence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vboQOQwifwg AHC300 (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

AHC300, Someones youtube video is not a reliable source. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
We've already seen this video and everyone's comments about it have been responded to ad nauseum above. There is NOTHING incorrect in the current article. We operate on Verifiability, not "Truth". ♟♙ (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

@LordParsifal: please discuss your edits here and obtain a consensus before making them again, as there is clearly users who disagree with them. Veverve (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Simple stuff. Provide proof that this artificially blown-up non-mystery:
1. is a cypher
2. follows the structure of a Markov chain
Once that is done, these additions can remain in the article. Before it's done, they do not belong. Hope everyone agrees with me that this is a rational position. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordParsifal (talk • contribs) 19:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@LordParsifal: a WP:RS state it is. Misplaced Pages is not a place for WP:OR or for WP:Truth, we simply put in articles what reliable sources state. Veverve (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Veverve: WP:RSCONTEXT gives a whole lot of room for doubt. And I'm casting doubt. A whole lot of it. LordParsifal (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@LordParsifal: could you explain, if possible using other RS, why the opinion it is a cipher should not be mentioned in the article? Veverve (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

Categories: