Talk:Wrong Planet

message: Did you know that Wrong Planet was started by one of our own? His user name is/was AlexPlank. He is considered a "Missing Wikipedian". A little info from 66.218.12.217
:He is also known by the name Perl. We need to guard that all edits by this user are very neutral indeed. --Gerrit CUTEDH 12:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately they are not neutral. Look at this . 81.226.196.66 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, he edited pages about Autism, Wrong Planet, and his own User: page as an anonymous user. . After somebody restored the Criticism section (which he had removed before) he logged out of Wikipedia, removed the section , and -- edited his own user page User:AlexPlank . 81.226.196.66 (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Any online forum can claim any number of members, and program the bulletin board to show that number; the number isn't reliable.  And, Wrong Planet forums are not reliable sources for external information.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true about any news article or third party source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.44.251 (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Without an independent, secondary, published reliable source, it is nothing more than a claim (and a very unrealistic one at that) by Wrong Planet, and has to be attributed as such.  Any bulletin board owner can plug in a number in the board programming; the number has no meaning, and is only a Wrong Planet claim. It cannot be stated as fact without an independent source.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're being ridicuolous. Member numbers are reported in that way in the other website articles like something awful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.44.251 (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please sign your entries with four tildes ( ~~~~ ).  What is written in other articles is not our concern with this article; in this article, we will follow Wikipedia's policies on attribution to self-published sources (see WP:V and WP:SELFPUB).  The number is a Wrong Plant self-published claim; it is not a number independenty verified or published by secondary reliable sources.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Further, if you insist on using WrongPlanet forum links as sources on articles, then you might want to add back this one.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership numbers 

message: I don't think there's anything wrong with this article re WP:COI. So I'm removing the templates. I also believe the article to be fine and that the clean up template is not needed. Sourcing is third party and all okay. GetDumb 01:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing wrong 

message: I've removed the tags from the opening section because the rule noted applies only to BLP's and this isn't a BLP. Besides, in the case of the second tag the accuracy of the figure can not possibly be faked (as selfpub implies could be possible in general). Aspie Lover (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Self publication

message: http://www.autismdailynewscast.com/wrongplanet-pageview-count-hits-profound-time-low-due-lack-adaquate-autism-representation/26665/guest/
Is this reliable or not? Ylevental (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be an editorial submitted by a non-affiliated contributor which means it shouldn't be used for anything except as a primary source for statements attributed to Yuval Levental. See WP:NEWSORG Winner 42  Talk to me!  16:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally the framing of content via a "criticism section" is a bad idea because it collides with policy. A "reception" section or working bits of kerfleffle into the history are more appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Criticism Section? 

message: I propose that the article about Wrong Planet founder Alex Plank be merged with this article, as the article about him is rather short, not likely to increase much, and he is not notable enough to require more than a section of this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:2ed1:2ee0:a49e:330f:ecc4:9d2c (talk • contribs) 17:04, September 3, 2015‎
*Oppose The two articles should be separate. The website has a life of it's own and is not controlled one hundred percent by Plank, particularly the forum which he has barely anything to do with. 1.136.97.105 (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As the merger suggestion is now about 6 months old and hasn't gone anywhere. At this point, the nomination for deletion seems to have replaced this issue. Please !vote and/or comment on that page. Thanks. -  SummerPhDv2.0 02:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: ; Ylevental has been vandalising the article, lastly saying "removing uncited claims about special education, guardian, uncited claim about dermatologist, simplifying article". All are clearly cited and his removal of the statements are vandalism and should be restored. He is attacking Wrong Planet to make a point per the current ANI here. He should be blocked for this editing against WP:NPOV. 101.182.231.86 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored it for you. You're right. 61.29.8.30 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Just a few years ago, this article was a bit longer, now it's just a paragraph with now other sections. What happened? 154.117.181.194 (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to this article?