Talk:Everything2

message: There's a reference to OSDN in the text, which I would like to explain, but the reference in Wikipedia goes to something called SourceForge, Inc. So, having investigated, I understand that OSDN means Open Source Development Network. So, why is OSDN mentioned at all? Will somebody kindly fix this sentence so it means something to the average reader? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OSDN 

message: I got the [censored] with Everything2 years ago with their 'all new nodes must be deleted' policy. However, I logged in a moment ago and apparently Dem Bones hasn't been running e2 for over a year now. Does anyone know what's happened? --Surturz (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dem bones retired and was replaced by dann (now katherine) in 2005. See related blog post for discussion about the handover and The Power Structure of E2 for current info on who's in charge. --Muchness (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has there been a coup? 

message: I added the "smaller in number" clause. Everything2 is now getting less than 100 logins a day according to the statistics block when you log in. I can't seem to link to that stats block for a reference unfortunately, but it is not OR. --Surturz (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, that number would be the number of new users.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.6.175 (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my bad. I forgot about the time zone differences, and thought that the stats were for the end of the day, when they were actually about half-way through. I reckon e2 is still smaller than when it started, but it would require verification to put that in the article. --Surturz (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you ever browse through you only ever get stuff that's 5-10 years old.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.41.68 (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: broader in interest, although smaller in number

message: I'm familiar with the site, which I frequented heavily between 2000-2006, and I still visit it, though I'm not a "god" or other in group person there. Opening this section for resolution of the two outstanding tags. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. There are some fact discrepancies as well as language tone issues. Well someone else will need to address those; cleaned-up some stuff I knew to be flat false in the InfoBox. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually see that this is stale so removing the tag. Also trying to fix some bolixed refs. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Tagging 

message: What are the specific complaints? I don't see anything above. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. There are some fact discrepancies as well as language tone issues. Well someone else will need to address those; cleaned-up some stuff I knew to be flat false in the InfoBox. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: This site is a more spontaneous (from the beginning the users sort of took over with a relatively minimal direction from the site) and a less transparent one than wikipedia so I don't see how there could be primary sources for anything other than the founding of the site or the opinion of this or that group that has come and gone in the near decade it's been in operation. Footnotes for footnotes sake becomes idiotic at some point, so specific fact checks may be more appropriate here. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually see that this is stale so removing the tag. Also trying to fix some bolixed refs. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: IIRC "the Interregnum" the time the site was offline was several months, not one as indicated. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts 

message: Some things can't be sourced, such as the two "citation needed" tags in the Code of Behavior section. 
Regarding the first tag: I'm an admin on E2 and I can say with certainty that site policy doesn't allow for disclosing how, why or whom was banned from chatting, noding or accessing the site at all. We don't even keep an admins-only list of such info. 
Regarding the second tag: the best citation I can come up with for this is this, which explains how an IRC channel originally founded by E2 users as an extension of the site has become its complete antithesis where even mention of the site is verboten.
Unfortunately there are no neutral, third-party sources for this kind of thing, which leads me to question why those cite tags are there in the first place if they request sources for that which cannot be satisfactorily cited. I know that makes it seem POV'd, but there's really nothing for it. I agree that an explanation for these statements would be appropriate, but since it cannot be given and doesn't really exist would lead only to what would amount to nothing more than original research and/or speculation. Even if sources were available, it'd probably be a conflict of interest for me or anyone else that uses E2 to provide them (and who else could provide them?). Avalyn (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: The site seems to be down. The last snapshot at the wayback machine is from Jan 2011:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110108152202/http://everything2.net/--200.83.246.105 (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site down? 

message: Also the date seems suspect, needs a source. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sold for how much? 

message: This article could do with some mention on how popularity/traffic has massively fallen over the last 10 years or so? 82.152.144.89 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falling traffic 

message: The first paragraph on the History section details to some extent how E1 was incorporated twice into E2. I don't have the slightest clue what that means, and what I suspect it means, seems redundant, or perhaps slightly oxymoronic. I think that would be a point that could use clarification and/or elaboration. 125.253.100.87 Torsov (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twice Incorporated? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Everything2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090428134254/http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php?season=8 to http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/current.php?season=8
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified