Talk:The Best Page in the Universe

message: I think it's pretty clear that when Maddox says "hits" he is referring to "unique visitors". His hit counters do not increase with refreshes, and he has implied this by using "page views" to express the other meaning. However, most people think "page views" when they see "hits", so it kind of devalues the comments on unique visitors by calling them "hits". I changed this before, but it was lost in passing, so I'm posting the reasoning here. Colin 18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reasonably sure, also, that he said somewhere he just makes up large numbers for the counters.  (At the end of articles, I mean)  72.192.54.23 00:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Hits"

message: Previous versions of this article claimed that there was a major backlash against the travel industry as a result; I removed it, asked for sources, and nobody provided any.  Over at the Maddox article, previous versions have claimed that Maddox was deceptive and "lost a large readership" as a result.  The current version is just lame - a description of one his articles, which in itself is signifiacnt enough for inclusion here (if we include that, then we have to include every other article he's ever written).  Any event mentioned here must have had some kind of outside effect, such as the DJ copying from his Diaz article. Hbdragon88 03:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't edit this in, seeing as I can't find the data again (Orbitz has since changed hands), but there was a noticable drop in the value of Orbitz stock immediately following the Maddox article. If someone knows of a place to look it up, the stock ticker was "ORBZ" 66.165.31.200 02:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, even if there was a noticeable drop, it isn't necessarily linked to Madodx's article.  It oculd have just been a bad quarterly report or something.  I know Maddox does wield influence, but to affect the stock market? Hbdragon88 03:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted, but bad publicity does have an effect on companies stock, even if its coming from within a small niche group. Do we know if any larger news sources picked up on the story? If so, that would draw a fairly conclusive link. Also, im refering to a few day period after the article, not a quarter. 66.165.31.201 04:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbitz is unimportant 

message: From what I know of it, the Charity has little to do with the site itself, and is more of a personal venture of Maddox's, even if the visitors of the Best Page in the Universe contributed to it. Also, the fued between the Something Awful and Maddox has very little to do with the Best Page in the Universe. It should be moved to Maddox's article. (69.241.228.117 23:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much of George's personal life

message: Commujism is not the same than Best Page In The Universe, it shoulden't be a redirect. --200.89.6.215 23:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commujism and BPITU 

message: I changed the link of the hidden pages from The Best Fanpage In the Universe, to Maddox Addicts, which has a larger and more complete list, but someone edited it back.  Why?DevinOfGreatness 18:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it because it looked like a really small fan site, in comparsion to the large installed fanbase of The Best Fan Page in the Universe.  But if it is a more thorough list, I'll leave it be. Hbdragon88 02:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maddox Addicts is now linked by Maddox, so I guess there's no debate anymore. DevinOfGreatness 22:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The hidden pages of Maddox Addicts is a copy of the one at www.hidddenmaddox.tk, wich is more idiotic complete. --MarshalOctopus 11:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hidden Pages

message: While this is one of the funniest things on the web, I'm somewhat concerned about possible lack of notability and original research. Almost everything cited here is simply links to Maddox's descriptions. Does anyone know if this actually meets WP:WEB?19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Independence" excludes works affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
I'm starting out by putting 'primarysources' tag on it and removing part of the criticism section which contains weasle words and original research. --Dr. WTF 01:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I just wanted to suggest changing "women acitivists" to "feminists". He specifically targets feminists, as opposed to ALL women activists(as feminists are the extremists of women's rights, and that is specifically what he bashes them for). 71.232.239.11 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WOmanistsMujarimojo 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feminists 

message: I think so, but erring on the side of caution let's discuss it. Plus I only have one addition to the collection. If you Google "My Balls Are Huge" or on Yahoo "I hate old people", it brings you to Maddox's site. That's not enough to start a whole section, IMO, but does anyone else have semi-useful facts about the site that would be categorized here? Mujarimojo 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, trivia is frowned upon per WP:TRIV. hbdragon88 05:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: K, I'm new. Mujarimojo 04:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should there be trivia?

message: I was watching a video of Maddox at a book signing, and one of his fans happened to bring up his feud with Something Awful. Maddox stated he had resolved his issues with Richard Kyanka, and later went on to imply that this specific article was wrong.   , look at 5:00 --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   22:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A better source than YouTube is needed, following WP:YOUTUBE. Douglasr007 00:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cited WP:YOUTUBE incorrectly. That relates to external links, not references. Right at the top: "This guideline does not apply to inline citations, which appear in the "References" or "Notes" section." This is an old issue, but still. --darolew 23:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Something Awful

message: Seriously. It's the most prominent property of his site these days, there should be a section detailing it. BTW, would taking some articles-per-unit-time averages be considered original research? S. Morrow 23:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should have a section about how infrequently he updates his site 

message: I honestly don't think that there at that many "reliable sources" around for something like this. There are certain topics where they just do not exist.
:Then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. hbdragon88 06:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia should not have an article about a website. Articles about published authors and other famous persons are acceptable, but articles about web sites should be marked for speedy deletion with the db:web tag  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.59.55 (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it should. Especially if that website has a major fan base and is a source of debate. You want to delete the Google article? Eno-Etile 03:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if we allowed articles on anything, then we would be in real trouble and the qualiy of Wikipedia would go to shit.  Anyway, WP:WEB is the bone of contention here.  It must have reliable, third-party media coverage.  Sadly, this means that big Internet things such as The Abridged Series cannot exist.  Google is very notable in the sense that it is a big corporation that is traded on the NYSE and even has its own word in the dictionary hbdragon88 05:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats ridiculous. Everything should have an article ( assuming some kind of sources can be found or that the bulk of the article would consist of basic facts or common knowledge). Wikipedia isn't a large corporation and it has an article. This isn't a conventional encyclopedia that requires a limitation on the number of articles or limitations on what qualifies as necessitating an article, so why recommend we do that? And a lack of sources doesn't mean that there shouldn't be an article, it just means that the content of the page should consist primarily of common knowledge or that sources need to be found, or as a last resort "un-sourced flags" can be put up. Several pages lack sources but few of them are recommended for deletion. And you think the quality of wikipedia would "go to shit?" The already abounding POV, flaming, poor grammar, terrible spelling, and lack of intellectual writing seem to be bigger threats to the quality of wikipedia, and those exists on almost all discussion and article pages. Eno-Etile 02:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is the "eighth most visited site on the web" and it has spawned literlaly hundreds of articles about its reliability, as well as issues with user identity (see Essjay controversy) and competition with Citizendium and the wiki model in general.  WP:NOT#PAPER, sure, but WP:NOT#IINFO, either. hbdragon88 03:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like he's a published author now.  Stick that in your WikiPipe and smoke it. --2dFx (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources

message: This page is obviously written by Maddox himself and features nothing but bragging, written in third person. Not only that, it only shows Maddox's view on his controversies, like MaM. The site was formed, so Maddox spammed their petition and mirrored it on his site to spam it some more? Where are their receptions, comments, etc to what he did? He had a feud with Something Awful, all we have is a really sterilized Maddox-friendly version of that.
Wikipedia has been criticized for it's tangents on pages about websites, flash comics and internet celebrities, so why are they being so loose with adspace about this guy?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusher (talk • contribs) 09:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit, I am a fan of Maddox, but I've tried the best I can to clean it up as much as possible.  I now recognize that this doesn't have a single third-party reference per WP:WEB.  The only deletion debate that this has undergone is way back in early 2005, and I guess it may be time to reappraise its suitability here.  Iam in favor or redirecting this to Maddox (writer) hbdragon88 23:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its not the best written article on wikipedia, but I don't think it needs to be deleted. It has a lot of readers, fans and critics. There are several articles about less important or noteworthy subjects that are even more poorly written. Let's start at the bottom and work our way up.Eno-Etile 03:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and list examples.  What other articles are in just as much trouble? hbdragon88 05:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point with the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS bit.Other than that your argument is crap. And listing crappy articles on wikipedia would take much more time than I have. The page is not a vanity page and it doesn't need to be deleted. The web page receives thousands of hits daily and has a major fanbase that seems to warrant an article. If you have a problem with a POV slant, change it instead of crying for deletion. If you don't know enough about the subject then you can look up information on it, or have someone with more knowledge on the topic make the changes. Or if it reaally bothers you try to have it merged with Maddox's site. Eno-Etile 02:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WEB, c'mon now.  I listed an example that also has just as large as a following (The Abridged Series) that was still deleted.  Kings of Chaos receives thousands of hits a day and it too was deleted.  I don't know enough?  I literally wrote most of this article.  Where did I ever say that it was vanity?  I said it may not be suitable for existence here, but that anon was the one who said that it was vanity, not me.  I don't have a problem with a POV slant, don't confuse my point of view with the anonymous user's point of view. hbdragon88 03:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't say you that you don't know enough about the topic. I said if you don't know enough and it was not intended as an implication but as a preventative measure to keep someone from retorting "I can't fix it because I don't know enough about the topic." The topic is "This is a vanity Page." Since I took up an argument counter to the topic's I assume anyone arguing against my argument would be agreeing with the topic, sorry. Also when I said "your argument is crap" I meant the whole deletion argument not just what you specifically said.
Isn't there some organization that monitors hits to web pages or something? That could be used as a third party reference, and if the MAM site is still up maybe it can be used as a reference of sorts. Eno-Etile 20:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wat.  A vanity page is something written by someone who needs the cache of wikipedia to publicize themselves.  Maddox clearly doesn't and you can check his referrer logs (I think they are still public) just to see.  If you think the article is POV then tag it and start editing it to be neutral and in line with sourcing.  Also....how is MaM notable again?  We can show their views but what sourcing do we have to indicate the organization was/is serious and active and that their views represent a reasonable perspective on the issue of his website? Protonk (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a vanity Page

message: I plan to give the article a serious round of hatchetization... flagged a lot of self-pub stuff.  If the wp:RS don't care, neither does Wikipedia.- sinneed (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags 

message: Shouldn't this section be referred to in the past-tense? I'm pretty sure this group (in probability no more than one or two persons with a few sympathizers) is no longer around and hasn't been for 5 years now. The only 'independent' (non-mirror) evidence of their existence, a not-updated-since-January-2004 GeoCities page, will become irrelevant in October of this year when GeoCities closes. I don't see MAM as being really all that notable considering their sole claim to fame was a briefly 'popular' online petition against Maddox that lasted for about five months before people ignored it. Maybe include it in a controversies section or whatever, but having its own section seems a bit much. --Mrdie (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am dubious about it even being real, ever.  I think it deserves, possibly, a line.  A short line.- sinneed (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

text: It *IS* the controversies section.  I think it is really part of the content of the site.  The only actual source is about the "MADD" people getting mad, and the selfpub review of the site that mentions MAM.  My thinking is that this should be a subsection with 2 short paragraphs...1 mentioning the now-gone and forgettable MAM, and 1 mentioning Maddox's reaction to criticism (quite adequately summed up by his image at his WP article)...if someone provides wp:RS for it... and just 1 if not.- sinneed (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mothers Against Maddox - Redux 

message: While amusing, I don't see a need, and am dubious of its value.  Unless someone (like the adding editor) argues otherwise, I'll drop that image pretty soon.- Sinneed 22:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image 

message: A new section called controversy should be created to reflect at least the most recent an important controversy the website has with apple, and the fact he is banned from apple stores. For more reference you can see http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=apple_store_ban, but I think another external confrimation of this ban should also be provided.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.31.1.98 (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Apple censorship

message: Here's a picture of the website's main page: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/underwire/2013/04/the-best-page-in-the-universe-660x345.png
Can we add it to the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnindentifiedHuman (talk • contribs) 23:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we add this picture? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Best Page in the Universe. 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/20050729091647/http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=100million_stats to http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=100million_stats
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=book
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) 06:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified