Talk:Online puzzle

message: I'm undoing this redirect for two reasons: I can't find any reason for the blanket removal of the page in these discussion posts; and secondly, the redirect was to "Puzzle" which has information of rubik's cubes etc... I want information about the phenomenon of online puzzles such as not pron, not a history of the rubik's cube! If you want to delete the article, at least make the information available 'somewhere'. In any case, I don't think this article should be completely removed. 58.110.28.154 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can help put together an article on online puzzle games, using reliable sources for references per our WP:Verifiability policy, then this stands a chance as a seperate article. At the moment, there just isn't enough verified information to warrant it. If you still hold your opinion and want to revert back again, that's fine, I (personally) won't redirect it again. Marasmusine 17:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: July Deletion and Redirect

message: There is a link on the bottom that liks to an online puzzle. If Wikipedia isn't for advertisin, shouldn't be removed? Or if it's for an example, shouldn't we use Not Pron since just about everyone knows about not pron? User:Jacroe | User_talk:Jacroe | GO M*A*S*H 02:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already had to remove the Tim Tang Test stuff once before; I have done so again and will leave a friendly note for that editor. Edit: Except it appears to be on a dynamic IP address. Marasmusine 09:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality?

message: This seems to be more of a list of riddles, as opposed to an article ABOUT online riddles.  I'm proposing at least a partial re-write of this article.  Perhaps we could seperate these links into a list and link that to an article which is actually about the riddles, the history of the riddles, some common elements in these riddles, etc. Kntrabssi 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-Write

message: This article was listed for deletion on 18 May, 2005. The discussion was closed with the result of no consensus.  This article will not be deleted.  You can view the discussion, which is no longer live: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Not pron. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Closed deletion listing

message: I'm being bold and moving this from Not pron to Online puzzles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, Notpron is (or soon will be) important enough to have its own article. -- Obradović Goran  (talk 17:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Be bold|Being bold]] and moving to [[Online puzzles]] for merge

message: Frvade's article would fit better here IMHO, being a small article and so strongly related to the puzzles covered here, specially Notpron. CharlesDexterWard 17:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging from [[Frvade]] 

message: It occurs that there's no ryhme or reason to the organization of the riddles under "Other Riddles." Should we organize them alphabetically, by date created, or some other means? I'm refraining from making any sweeping edits until I get a sense of what others would like to see.Energythief 16:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do  those abbreviations mean? I can't understand what your saying.--24.190.140.116 20:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <<GWOT>> is an abbreviation of one of the puzzles in the article. "NPOV" means "Neutral point of View", one of the key tenets of Wikipedia articles. This whole article, on the other hand,  is quickly becoming an advertisement, and I think I'll make the edits suggested by CDW (above) as soon as I have time. I think a simple listing of information in a list should do it... riddle name, link, current number of levels, etc.Energythief 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ok, I've alphabetized the list. Next, I'll run through them and try to eliminate NPOV. Energythief 05:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to organize these riddles? 

message: I believe the website given the title of "the first" online puzzle/riddle game needs to be double-checked.  The earliest such site I remember was The Stone (www.thestone.com), circa 2000.  That would make it earlier than Cybertrek, which the article claims to be the first.
: This has obviously been edited since your post, but nonetheless the two sites currently listed in the 'origins' section both seem to have dates that are _later_ than some of the others in this list.  I have removed this section and merged the sites into the list.  For this article an origins section will need to have it's sources clearly cited as there will be many competing claims, which without verification these are pointless to include. --HappyDog 17:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on "The First" Online Puzzle 

message: What is the meaning and origin of the term "Notpron"? --LambiamTalk 16:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notpron is the corruption of "not porn," which is in itself referencing the online puzzle "this is not porn." --flatluigi(talk/contrib) 00:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And why is notpron listed as the only one of these riddles? All others have been deleted exept notpron? whats the sense in that? either there is no riddle or I want my riddle back in here as well.
Wikipedia is not advertising. While the inclusion of notpr0n may or may not be appropriate, there is little doubt that it is the most well-known and one of the most foundational riddles in this genre. Energythief 02:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notpron? 

message: Yes, hypocrisy.  Though not in possession of a vested interest, as it were, it is easy to understand why those who do maintain an interest feel that they are not getting a fair shake.
It is utterly nonsensical to propose that 'Wikipedia is not advertising', and, based on this highly inaccurate tenet, a list of the various free gratis online riddles may not be published in one of its articles.  In the face of that alleged impartiality, Wikipedia is cleverly advertised in the very article that poses the impetus for the argument, as if to imply that it is beyond reproach, an immense phenomenological entity that may be implied as such in one of its own articles without debate.  Alongside Google, no less.  Even Encyclopedia Britannica never stooped to self-reference.
Interestingly, Google is not linked, but Notpron is linked twice, once in the article and once in the link to "a large list of online riddles", which just happens to take the user directly to the Notpron message board.  Perhaps this is the fear of competition manifesting itself, or perhaps there is some Wiki-logic regarding household words and stock prices.  There is also the highly suspect terminology characterizing Notpron as the most popular of the online puzzles.  This reeks of either blatantly inept research, as if the author simply Googled the names of a few riddles to see which one produced the most results (Google's algorhythms function in a network of cells, making this method extremely inaccurate), or flagrant favoritism relying on the user's ignorance to remain undetected (sorry, but the word Notpron is no more recognizable to the average surfer than the word Pron).  In any case, there is no manner in which it can be reasoned that one riddle can be linked while the others cannot, particularly if the argument is to simply report on the concept of online puzzles in an abstract sense.  But therein lies the real problem.
Beyond the generous serving of erroneous entries, there is ultimately no objection to Wikipedia's devotion of entire pages to a myriad of popular culture media minutia, such as a television commercial, a painting, or song lyrics.  Whether or not Wikipedia opts to implicitly recognize the fact, online puzzles are a pop culture phenomenom no less deserving of in-depth study than, say, the 11 minute clip known as "MySpace: The Movie", a list of quotes from "The Simpsons", or the summary and a YouTube.com link to Paris Hilton's "Stars Are Blind" music video.  All of the aforementioned, believe it or not, can be found on their own Wiki-pages, discussed in meticulous detail. 
Those who maintain some semblance of control over the content of these pages need to realize the hard truth:  despite its best intentions, the byproduct of Wikipedia is de facto free advertising, albeit inadvertent.  There's nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with denying it to the detriment of others.  It is an intrinsic trait of the internet and, more concisely, internet documentation, that anything requiring scrutiny of veracity and/or validation is linked to its source material.  Essentially, the link, or even the reference to the link, is an advertisement in and of itself, let alone all of the brand merchandising taking place in the articles.  And people wonder why information gathered from Wikipedia comes with a complimentary grain of salt.   
There is no credible argument that can be put forth which will justify suddenly singling out a particular entity and nobly proclaiming "we have to draw the line here, folks".  Wikipedia has no rational, moral, intellectual, or political leg to stand on regarding this matter.  If it is acceptable to link people to a list of over 70 paraphilia that includes over 250 links to urls such as autoerotic-asphyxiation.com, altpenis.com, fetishexchange.org, rotten.com, queenoffarts.com, sexymisslizz.com, wetset.net, nambla.org, et al, then it is acceptable to link people to a list of free riddles.
StewartDaniels 04:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stewart, I assume you're referring to my comment when you mention "Wikipedia is not advertising" in your initial paragraph. The reason I said that was the comment of the poster above me: "either there is no riddle or I want my riddle back in here as well". This kind of sentiment completely violates NPOV. I have no issue with having the list of riddles - in fact, I have a riddle of my own, and enjoyed seeing it linked here when we had the list in the past - but I have a problem with someone purposefully (and anonymously, mind you) adding content to a page expressly for self-promotion. If the poster's riddle is worthy of inclusion, let it be included, along with every other one we can find. What I was arguing is that consensus should determine what's here and what's not. As a somewhat biased participant, I am refraining from adding or removing riddles. Let others with no vested interest take that bold move. (And thanks for the list of bizzare links!)Energythief 07:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I was referring to your comment, but only because I see the general sentiment being tacitly implied all over Wikipedia in defense of its content.  Anyone can take a cursory perusal of Wikipedia's content and discern this specific hypocrisy repeatedly manifesting itself.  As for online puzzles in particular, I have now contributed a discussion in the Notpron article which directly relates to this argument, as I find it even more hypocritical that the Notpron article even exists while the issues in this article are being discussed.  Here is the link: Notpron discussion-You've got to be kiddingStewartDaniels 12:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypocrisy