Talk:Tucker Max/Archive 2

message: The original wording was smething like "tucker was PROVED to be a liar etc", such people do not belong writing in encylpedia. They didn't "prove" shit, grow up. Mentioning the incident in a factual manner instead of a single point of view may be ok, but not the way you tools did it. RoyalAbidi 04:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Opie and Anthony incident 

message: WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 06:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: I've done all I could do with this article.  I was going to research a few additional facts to add, but I do not see the point because of the various "crusaders" who regularly add impertinent information.  It's a shame that folks that honestly want to edit with the assume good faith mentality must be hampered by zealots. Again, an encyclopedia is not the place for a biased blog to be referenced.  Opinion (within an article) has no place here.  MadSammyboy must have his own agenda if he is willing to take the time to repeatedly add the link back even while he seemingly lacks the courage to even be a registered member of Wikipedia. FlthyGunslinger 22:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Wars

message: The middle name, Tibor, was added by a not registered user (just an IP), I have never seen that name used before, can we trust it? DJ John 23:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That middle name is used here -  --J2thawiki 10:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle name 

message: "There has also been allegations that anyone who disagrees with Tucker Max on his message board is banned, and no dissenting opinions are tolerated. Anyone can voice their opinion on Tucker Max without fear of deletion."  
This is clearly not a NPOV.  I am a huge fan of Max's and even I can see this.  What is the point in talking about this particular aspect of Max's messageboard in this area but not other aspects of it?    It's not something that can be proved or disproved without a source to back it up.  Deleted it. Lauren 16:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the mass media deletion 

message: At what point do the moderators lock down pages that are constantly vandalized? Because if that point exists, this page has to have reached it. This is just ridiculous. Because a few people have some personal issue with Max, they constantly change his page and put ludicrous statements. Why even have an entry if it is never right because vandals screw it up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.215.63.44 (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse and vandalization of this page 

message: I doubt this is suitable for wikipedia, please do not readd it. If you wish for a picture, please find one which is both released for fair use, and which is a picture of him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Feba (talk • contribs) 03:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Your face here" picture 

message: While I don't approve of Antiscian's methods, I do object to the entire O&A section being removed.  It's an appearance Tucker did, and the hosts asked questions about the proof for his stories.  Maybe it could be reworded to be non-biased so as to not be Anti-Tucker, but I think it's a valid mention.  Also, I don't object of course to linking to TuckerMax.com, I don't think we should use it as citations of fact (which the article does right now) --Bill.matthews 03:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  O&A Section 

message: The above paragraphs were added by Antiscian.  That user has been warned about vandalizing this page before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Antiscian).  The "bot" in question is Antiscian sitting at a keyboard and the Wikipedia staff in question most likely does not exist. --66.65.68.94 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antiscian's Personal Jihad 

message: "For the record, Bill.Matthews is right. I can see leaving a sentence or two about the O&A stuff on the page, but not a paragraph loaded with weasel words and opinion"
Documenting the facts of Max's visit with Opie & Anthony is "weasel words" and opinion?   You must have not watched the video I provided.  If you want weasel words and opinions, re-read Max's stories.  If you want facts, watch the video.
I assure you here and now, this Wikipedia article will continue to be monitored to ensure proper factual documentation of Max's public activities
.
Glad you have the time to "monitor" this page.  Guess you must have one of them there durn gizmos that lets you record the O&A show for future listening.  --66.65.68.94 21:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of you stop bickering over what the other one is saying. - febtalk  10:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop Kissing Tucker's Ass 

message: "At the SXSW conference in March 2007, Max admitted to spamming blogs and posting dozens of fake Amazon.com book reviews in order to increase book sales."
Do you have any evidence to back this up? 75.8.237.121 16:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: edit accordingly. i didn't add the sentence or the citation./ BabuBhatt 20:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SXSW Claims? 

message: Yeah, it really is.  Whether or not you like Tucker's writing or approve of his lifestyle and "gimmick", all the editing that's been done has reduced the article to a single paragraph.  Lcduke's edit on this page proves that the deliberate attempts to shorten the article are themselves POV vandalism, but at the same time, the article a few years ago that documented message board trivia wasn't any better.  Most notable among the problems with the article as it stands, is that there's no mention of either Rudius Media in general, or of the lawsuit from Anthony DiMeo.
Article should be broken up into a biography, entry about his website including message board, explanation of Rudius Media, criticism (O&A appearance, reporter trying and failing to find the sushi restaurant, not the critical blog), courtroom issues, and published works. McJeff 21:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my edit again. I was mainly upset because the entry was filled with pointless and irrelevant CRITICISM of Max, although the acres of trivia about him were pretty annoying too. I guess he's becoming more notable because of the book and his CC pilot, but I still don't see the article needing to be more than a couple of paragraphs. Lcduke 20:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It shouldn't be up to you to decide how long an article should be either. Please if you continue to cut this down to absolutely nothing stop coming to this article at all. It did have a lot of pointless information but it had a lot of plausable information as well. It could have been edited out of the pointless information instead of being completely stripped of all information. --LocalBandAid02 21:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is too short 

message: Does anyone have a source for the claim that Tucker is being sued/investigated over the Rudius Logo or is it just someone's defamatory idea of wishful thinking?  Until someone provides a credible source, that should be removed.  --70.195.132.122 16:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rudius Logo Lawsuit 

message: This is the biggest joke of an article, and has such an obvious bias against Max. Besides the bibliography, there is not even any mention of his book which was a NYTimes Bestseller, for crying out loud. The entire article should just be deleted until someone wants to take the time to actually write an accurate, thorough, unbiased account of him that includes the bad AND the good. That's how neutrality works.
Why don't you take your paramount grammar skills and re-write it if it is bothering you so much?75.8.237.121 18:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased.

message: I am not nor will I ever be a Tucker Max fan but this article is way too short considering what he has done. I have read his book and thought it was horrible and checked out his Wikipedia article about a year ago and found out a lot of information on him. It was a good article that described what he did without glorifying his practices. I come back to check a couple of things after a friend quoted him and it has been reduced to this. This is barely an article and whoever decided to delete pretty much all of it obviously does not like Tucker Max and is going against Wikipedia's POV policy. Most authors that reach the Best Sellers list have at least a few paragraphs about them on here and about there book but there is barely any mention about him at all. This is an encyclopedia and people come on here to find information about something/someone. Please revert back to the old article. This is absolutely ridiculous. --LocalBandAid02 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way Too Short- Please Revert 

message: I didn't add much additional information (best seller, etc.), but I just formatted the page so it is more organized and readable.  The earlier blob of a paragraph was unwieldy and kind of pointless.  The current format can at least be more easily updated in the future when/if the show is ever put on the air, new books come out, more criticism, etc.  Bluefield 20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. This looks a million times better. --LocalBandAid02 14:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Format

message: It is pretty common knowledge now that Tucker Max is the pseudonym of writer James Orville Carter and that the character is fictional, yet for some reason this article is still written as if Tucker Max were a real person. I have edited it accordingly as such.
:Source? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure your next edit can tell us a lot about how much attention we should be paying to this thread. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Max Not a Real Person 

message: I have two objections to including that reference. First, this is a "shock jock" radio show that is hardly a "reliable source." Secondly, the link included is an apparent copyright violation. --Samiharris 19:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your copyright question, so I have replaced the link with one directly from an O&A official site.  As for the reliable source question, it's simply stating what happened in the interview.  The article is not written to say that his stories are untrue.  Simply a recap of an appearance he made. --Bill.matthews 21:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Opie & Anthony]]

message: Here is a quote directly from Max's forum from Max himself regarding the pilot:
"I canceled the TV deal with Sony/Comedy Central. There will be no Tucker Max TV show in the near future."
Please do not attempt to sanitize Max's wikipedia and go against what he has said personally.  Users like Bluefield have also been seen editing Opie & Anthony, which could be seen as a clear indicator that he is either working for Rudius or has some sort of connection.  Max stated he canceled the deal and that is sustained.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.118.36 (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He said he canceled it.  That's not a reliable source.  Besides, it's a cancelled project, it shouldnt be listed as an upcoming project. --Whackbagger 20:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not a reliable source? ITS HIS FUCKING SHOW WHAT ARE YOU ON OF COURSE ITS A RELIABLE SOURCE. That's like asking me what my name is, I KNOW BECAUSE IT'S ME. What are you smoking?? RoyalAbidi 00:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comedy Central Pilot Cancellation

message: Ok, first off, please do not make accusations that an editor has a Conflict Of Interest about editing a certain series of articles unless you have proof. And no, editing Opie and Anthony is not proof. Also, I have cleaned up the Tucker Max projects section, to flow better (avoid using a reference of him announcing that the TV pilot had been cancelled, and then re-entering the same reference about having him announcing that he had sold the rights to one of his stories for a movie. (If possible, perhaps that section could be expanded? Do they know who he sold it to, etcetera? Right now, we're teetering on the edge of verifiability here. Self-published statements are not supposed to be primary sources of verification. If it's notable enough for entry into his article, then it's probably notable enough to be picked up by Reliable, third-party sources). SirFozzie 11:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've hit on exactly the problem I see. We can't use what Tucker says as a Reliable Source, because it is a Self published source.  If/when it was picked up by a third party, then fine.  So without using Tucker's own blog as a source, then we're left with a pilot announced in 2006, that never was heard from again (not developed as of yet).  Not notable!  That's why I propose removing the item altogether.  The book deal is a clear example of what should stay -- it's got a third party source. --Bill.matthews 20:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it was announced is notable, (I just did a search and found several possible RS candidates (including Variety)). But maybe we can remove the selection about the cancellation, and just note the project is dead. As for the movie being optioned, I searched and couldn't find any RS for that just yet. SirFozzie 21:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tucker Max projects

message: I haven't contributed much to this article, but I've been watching it for over a year.  
The problem this article has is that Tucker Max's anti-fans are so loathingly contemptuous of him that they feel that the article being anything other than an attack page would be unencyclopedic.  The recently archived talk page has several examples of editors determined to keep the article as short as possible as an insult to Tucker.  
True, the article was at one point overrun with Tucker's fans who wanted to document message board minutae, but that problem went away a long time ago.  Now it's just a few people trying to hold the wolves away from the door.
I haven't messed with this article because trying to do anything with it is like stepping into a hornet's nest.
Without an admin to state, and enforce, the unencyclopedic-ness of certain things that the vandals and, for lack of a better term, "haters", insist on contributing, will never be respected.  Case in point - a back and forth war over the controversies section caused the article to be protected.  And two weeks later, the two sides have't even attempted to initiate a discussion.  What little of a discussion there was, was there before the article was protected.
Get an admin in here to sort some things out.
Then compile what needs to be mentioned about Tucker, good and bad.  And since things are so argued over that a single change causes 20 edits in the article, hammer out what's going to be included on the talk page before adding it. 
As a final comment, I'd like to suggest permanent semi-protection for the article so that randoms can't anonymously vandalize.  McJeff (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Issues 

message: in the bibliography there is a dead link to 'i hope they serve beer in hell', however, the book does have its own page  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.198.91 (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: fix the link

message: It should be announced that Max has a film in pre-production.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.70.15 (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Film