Talk:Urban75/Archive 1

message: Nearly the entire article fails WP:NOR and WP:V. The site cannot serve as a reference for itself except in extremely limited circumstances. Without reliable third party references information cannot be included in the article. Everything that has no references needs to be chopped out. I brought up the same point in September 2005 and very little has been done, so now is the time. There's been way too much wasted time on this article for it to be in this poor shape. - Taxman Talk 17:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:No original research|Original research]] 

message: The sentence;
 Moderators reply that it's not an issue for most people as no one forces anyone to donate money.
Dosen't really make any sense. If the site was openly for profit, or demanded membership fees, there would in fact be less reason for financial openess. Traditionaly charitable institutions, which urban75 clearly likes to think it is, by virtue of asking for donations, are required to provide more details of their accounting than commercial ones. Ernestolynch 15:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *If it isn't verifiable, then it needs to go - but first, we should see if we can verify it. Warofdreams talk 17:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: See also Madashell 08:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finances. Again 

message: To start the process of verification, I've added  tags to each statement which appears to need a reference.  The basic description of the site content does not need a reference, since the evidence for this can be Urban75 itself.  Similarly, the introduction doesn't need references, since it essentially summarises what is covered later in the article.  I've also removed the list of board management as being non-notable and difficult to verify (unless we take U75 as a source), and the financial criticisms, since extensive discussion of them has failed to unearth any valid references.  If you have any references for the other points, please add them to the article. Warofdreams talk 00:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an "Urban75 radio" forum on the boards, but the website for the project appears to have been taken down, apparently it's being revived, though I'm not involved in the project, so I wouldn't know about that. Madashell 21:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verification

message: :Image:Urban75 homepage.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Urban75 homepage.PNG

message: There seems to be an edit was going on over the wording of this section.  Neither version has any references, clearly neither is uncontroversial, so I'm removing it for now.  Please do not reinstate either version without either adding reliable references, or discussing it further here. Warofdreams talk 13:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi warofdreams. Have a look on Urban75 site, there is a thread where editor talks about the recent instated ads for beer money. Thanks, have a nice day.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.172.54 (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The problem with the reference you provide re: advertising is that in the header post on the thread editor makes a clear argument that he is opposed to advertising ("I fucking hate advertising and I pride myself on the fact that urban75 is one of the very few large, truly independent sites left untouched by corporate sponsorship, banner ads, pop ups, pop unders and text links."). The FAQ on the site also *clearly* states that it is advertising free. I think you clearly need to recognise the non-commercial nature of the site in the article as it's a clear feature of the website -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The experiment with very minor advertising, as I understand it and as referenced on the boards within the last month or so, has lapsed. If you can find me a page with an advert on then I'll believe it!! Until then I think it's very clear that the overwhelming philosophy of U75 and one of the key things that makes it virtually unique for a community of it's size, is that it's got a no advert policy on the boards at least -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should wait until you find the ads before you revert next time? I'll leave the page for an hour or so. It is possible to find whatever you need before you create or edit a page you know ;-) Just be careful with reverts, there's absolutely no point getting into an edit war about something like this. Whilst you're at it, btw, you could look for a NPOV source to back up claims either way of advertising -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Can you provide the proof that this has lapsed please? http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8174603&postcount=41 Jontyjoesph (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding was from a thread from Feb 2009. That isn't the case - there is one solitary page on the entire site with 5 google adverts on it. I'm not convinced that the current edit here reflects that at all - I'd like to see a reference to the advertising free nature of the boards for example. I'd like to see you combine the elements of the recent edits - I'll let you do it first and see what you can come up with. I'm also wary, however, that a lot of this is self referencing and original research rather than npov. An obvious solution to that would be to remove the section -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I deleted the section. It can go back in when someone comes up with an authoratitave thrid party citation Pontificalibus (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine by me -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

text: What you understand, however, isn't justifiable for inclusion - you need stuff which can be verifiably referenced from a third party source. If you can do that - and if you think it's notable (which, frankly, I'd need to be convinced about) - then go ahead and add it. But until that point, it'd be grand if people could leave the article be Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising/Corporate resistance

message: Jontyjoesph, you (and/or your various sockpuppets) keep replacing the referenced statment:
"The entire urban75 site now attracts in excess of quarter of a million page impressions per day, but remains totally non-commercial and advert-free. We continue to shun lucrative advertising and corporate sponsorship deals, with the site being run and maintained by the editor and moderating team."  "
with
"A public vote showed that the majority of site users were against any form of advertising, even when it came to carrying advertising for 'politically acceptable' items like Fairtrade and ethical products."
...where is your reference for this?
Pontificalibus (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the reference you provide re: advertising is that in the header post on the thread editor makes a clear argument that he is opposed to advertising ("I fucking hate advertising and I pride myself on the fact that urban75 is one of the very few large, truly independent sites left untouched by corporate sponsorship, banner ads, pop ups, pop unders and text links."). The FAQ on the site also *clearly* states that it is advertising free. I think you clearly need to recognise the non-commercial nature of the site in the article as it's a clear feature of the website -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The experiment with very minor advertising, as I understand it and as referenced on the boards within the last month or so, has lapsed. If you can find me a page with an advert on then I'll believe it!! Until then I think it's very clear that the overwhelming philosophy of U75 and one of the key things that makes it virtually unique for a community of it's size, is that it's got a no advert policy on the boards at least -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should wait until you find the ads before you revert next time? I'll leave the page for an hour or so. It is possible to find whatever you need before you create or edit a page you know ;-) Just be careful with reverts, there's absolutely no point getting into an edit war about something like this. Whilst you're at it, btw, you could look for a NPOV source to back up claims either way of advertising -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Can you provide the proof that this has lapsed please? http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8174603&postcount=41 Jontyjoesph (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding was from a thread from Feb 2009. That isn't the case - there is one solitary page on the entire site with 5 google adverts on it. I'm not convinced that the current edit here reflects that at all - I'd like to see a reference to the advertising free nature of the boards for example. I'd like to see you combine the elements of the recent edits - I'll let you do it first and see what you can come up with. I'm also wary, however, that a lot of this is self referencing and original research rather than npov. An obvious solution to that would be to remove the section -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I deleted the section. It can go back in when someone comes up with an authoratitave thrid party citation Pontificalibus (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine by me -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

text: What you understand, however, isn't justifiable for inclusion - you need stuff which can be verifiably referenced from a third party source. If you can do that - and if you think it's notable (which, frankly, I'd need to be convinced about) - then go ahead and add it. But until that point, it'd be grand if people could leave the article be Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Replacement of referenced statement with unreferenced statement

message: Started a bit of work on this article as it reads, in parts, like an advert - I'm sure Urban75 would understand wikis policy of not being a place for promotion etc.
A Lot of unsited or poorly sited claims, also.  Anyone got any good independant sources on the site?  
Will be working on this article intermitently.  Collaboration appreciated.  90.197.125.137 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of your changes look fine at an initial glance, but please ensure that they are correctly referenced (a generic reference to the forums is no use), and also leave off the fake "warnings" to users that they will be blocked.  I know that you have used several accounts to introduce the claim that there is advertising on the site, and I say again, if there is, please show us where it is (and a reference to show that this is notable). Warofdreams talk 16:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Then, as requested above, provide an appropriate reference for your claims. Warofdreams talk 15:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

text: A verifiable, third party reference would be lovely though - referencing the subject of the article is *not* third party referencing. That way you avoid POV issues. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

text: There's no need to look at the site itself, because the material Wikipedia can use is what's verified on reliable sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: didn't realise urban was this popular
Urban75: Internet Forums, Brixton, Bulletin Boards, The Levellers (Band), Adobe Shockwave, Brian Paddick. 
--109.224.137.121 (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is being exploited for profit by [[VDM Publishing|Betascript Publishing]] 

message: Can I just point out that I have evidence that much of the current article was written by the webmaster of Urban75. I think this should be re-written under NPOV.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren542546 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am entirely separate and unknown to the above editor, and I have evidence of serious abuses of the website which can only have been done by someone with webmaster powers.--86.163.121.179 (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can fine third party cites to back that up then fine - go for it and we'll take a look at them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as it took seven months to add weight to the thread starter's initial concerns, let's be patient, shall we? --86.163.121.179 (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't actually see any weight being added to the thread starters initial "concerns". Afaik there is no evidence of this wiki article having been significantly edited by the webmasters (or moderators for that matter) of Urban. I'm sure the edit history will demonstrate the range of editors - a range which would take significant sock-puppetry to imagine were one editor. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'added weight' = the addition of critical content re urban 75, which seemed somewhat lacking, even here on the Talk page. It doesn't necessarily require urban 75 'sock-puppetry' to achieve that effect - just the usual ill-informed, conservative, Wiki editing.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have referenced critical content you want to add? --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of Wikipedia's singular and controversial policy re 'original research,' it's very hard for Marco Polo to correct general misapprehensions about historical China without risking offence. ;) --86.31.105.33 (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that he saw dragons there "with his own eyes", this can only be a good thing. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The particular 'dragon' concerning me, when I first replied to this section, was an urban 75 moderator/webmaster who seems to have suddenly removed wads of recent discussion over which posters must have spent hours.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't sound like something to be included in an encyclopedia.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not, but you white-bread-world Wiki eds arrived at a rather misleading picture of urban 75 prior to my recent edits.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I notice that there is a suggestion to take this to talk, so here it is.
For starters I don't think all of this belongs in the lead. Possibly the relevance re: politics could be - although I'm not sure that the reference really supports the point being made per se - if anything the reference is a quote from Editor which suggests that it's not about anarchism at all. Possibly the idea of declining page hits and/or influence might be - if the reference supports that. What I'm really, really concerned about is the use of an urban thread as a reference. For starters I have a significant concern about this meeting the reference criteria, but beyond that we're singling out one thread to make a specific point. What about some of the other threads that might make a counter-point? Or perhaps we should put in the argument that urban users have a different view of what constitutes a full english breakfast than other people? Or tell crap jokes? I any case, I'm not at all convinced that any of this belongs in the lead and, as I think  also suggested in their edit summary, perhaps not at all. It certainly feels that the edits are being used as attacks on urban rather than really providing the balance required of Wikipedia. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decline note in lead