Talk:Peer-Directed Projects Center

message: For proof of edit, please refer to the IRS Search Engine and enter "Peer Directed Projects Center" and note the respective entry. (Unsigned entry by someone)
:To back up anonymous, the IRS database mentioned above says the PDPC stopped being a non-profit in June 2006. To get the data, set the search type to "Starts with", search for "Peer Directed Projects Center" in "Houston" "TX" and hit search. It will return exactly one non-profit, "Peer Directed Projects Center (Until June 2006)". I am now editing the wiki article to reflect this (and will aggressively roll back any changes that state otherwise until the PDPC re-registers as a non-profit and Rob can prove so to the public).  Diablo-D3 10:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their ruling period simply expired in June 2006, and they have 90 days in which to file paperwork in order to keep their nonprofit status. Please research properly before you add untruths to articles. - Mark 02:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, was I just told that Rob is now trying to use Wikipedia admins and users to silence anyone who tries to combat Rob's NPOV edits of PDPC/Freenode related articles. That really does harm the credibility of Wikipedia; then again, having the official #wikipedia on Freenode doesn't help matters, either. Also, shouldn't the 90 days be up? It should have ended at the end of August. Diablo-D3 03:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Until June 2006" probably includes June, or runs until a specified date in June. - Mark 04:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRS Information 

message: This article is very POV. Almost a brochure for PDPC donators. I am going to attempt to clean out some of the not-notable information (donators receive user cloaks? these are free on most ircnets. Nor does it even attempt to explain what usercloaks are. Definitely not encyclopedic) and add relevant criticisms. --Weevlos 22:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needing cleanup

message: The opening sentence declares, "The PDPC is an organisation led and solely operated by Rob Levin..." yet the infobox lists 4 'key people'.  That doesn't make much sense.  Neither does deleting an entire Talk page en masse; ostensibly it is part of the article's history. — VoxLuna (talk)  10:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concurred (and now revived). The (formerly-)deleted content, ostensibly by Rob himself, explains the leadership issue. I've rewritten the first sentence to resolve the contradiction. DMacks 06:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Only one person?

message: I removed the criticism section because of what was said there can't (and wasn't substantiated) and the flow of the section was polemic rather than encyclopedic (and once that was removed there really wasn't anything left except basically repeating a Register article. The Register can publish whatever it likes but there's no real reason for us to repeat it because they did.
The only other items there were security problems at Freenode, "documented" by slashdot posts and blog entries--terrible sources for anything.
As far as I can tell, PDPC just doesn't have enough notoriety to have generated "criticisms" or "controversy" in any meaningful way.
Demi T/C 03:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed criticism section 

message: Don't put in his death until it's citable.
IRC logs do not count. --JStalk 21:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  But a [citation needed] would have sufficed.  WP:AGF. — VoxLuna (talk)  04:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, distracted by the actual incident.  GChriss <always listening><c> 00:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite death please