This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 05:53, 16 June 2021 (Archiving 9 discussion(s) to Talk:Markovian Parallax Denigrate/Archive 1) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:53, 16 June 2021 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 9 discussion(s) to Talk:Markovian Parallax Denigrate/Archive 1) (bot)(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. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Internet Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Internet culture Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
This 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. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
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)
- That is ludicrous. Please stop being disruptive to prove a WP:POINT. ♟♙ (talk) 22:43, 4 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: