It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The mystery of the missing Wikipedia page

page: 6
65
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
well shiver my timbers




posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by WolfofWar
 


sounds like a bunch of buttheads want ats off of wikipedia. It has nothing to do with the mods of the site, just a bunch of buttheads.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
there is no conspiracy because, you need actually to type it as above top secret instead of abovetopsecret or abovetopsecret.com

here proof it works when you type above top secret
the author that posted that article needs to also add abovetopsecret.com in title




[edit on 8-8-2010 by aspx]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
This page was last modified on 8 August 2010 at 20:01


Did someone just created that wikipage today? I wonder how long will it stay up.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by aspx
 




there is no conspiracy because, you need actually to type it as above top secret instead of abovetopsecret or abovetopsecret.com
I can concur that typing above top secret wasn't working not long ago, but that was just probably because the page was new and needed time to fully go through the system. However, none of this really has much to do with the conspiracy...if people actually listened, or read rather, you would know exactly what the said conspiracy behind this is and why it is unusual...



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Why anyone would trust wikipedia as a definitive source anyway is beyond me. It is consistently left wing and not neutral at all. ATS is a wild party of both irrational loud mouths and profound thinkers as well. Wikipedia only wants one side of any issue.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
The page is gone. I made another one, we will see how long it lasts.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...


You have new messages (last change).
Jump to: navigation, search
This article may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. See CSD A7.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23A7%7CA7%5D%5D%3A+Article+about+a+web+site%2C+blog%2C+web+forum%2C+webcomic%2C+podcast%2C+browser+game%2C+or+similar+web+content%2C +which+does+not+indicate+the+importance+or+significance+of+the+subjectA7

If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, please add:

[[hangon]]

directly below this tag, and then explain why you believe this article should not be deleted on its talk page. This will alert administrators to permit you the time to write your explanation. See help writing your first article. Adding a [[hangon]] without explaining why the article should be kept will not keep the article from being deleted.

Administrators: check links, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google: web, news.
This page was last edited by Egosintrick (contribs | logs) 1 second's time

Please consider placing the template:
[[subst:nn-warn|Above Top Secret.|header=1]] ~~~~
on the talk page of the author.

The speedy deletion of this page is contested. The person placing this notice intends to dispute the speedy deletion of this article on this page's talk page, and requests that this page not be deleted in the meantime.

Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon. This template should not be removed from a page still marked with a speedy deletion template.
Note to page author: you have not edited the article talk page yet. Please leave a message at the talk page explaining why you think the article should not be deleted.
If you have left a message at the talkpage but this message is still showing up, try purging the page cache.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I personally am very ok with Abovetopsecret.com not having a Wikipedia page. A site like that puts the "His Story" in "History". I've seen many an error on a Wikipedia page which I attempted to shed light on, only to be lashed out at by so-called "know-it-alls". Attempting to give Abovetopsecret.com a place on that site only legitimizes it's "I'm right and your wrong, enough of you, you are now banned" mentality.


In theory a site like Wikipedia is a wonderful idea. In practice however, Wikipedia is a cesspool of overbearing individuals with god-complexes who pick and choose the truth available to the public.

It's not worth labeling the lack of a page on that site a conspiracy. It's blatant censorship at it's worst/finest.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I just lurk, not signed in, but I wanted to sign in today and clear some things up with you guys. Wikipedia is heavily liberal and libertarian, with many conspiracy theorists, atheists, etc. It's not run by a propaganda machine. But, I'm not here to be flamed. I'm just here to clear some things up:

Wikipedia "staff" are not given the duty of cleaning up the website. The only "staff" that Wikipedia has are lawyers to ensure their rights to posting whatever they want (within copyright laws), server administrators to keep their 700+ sites running, and a board that is in charge of running the Wikimedia Foundation. The people entrusted with the right of deleting pages, locking pages, and blocking users are editors themselves who have been on the website for a very long time and have proved themselves as editors. They are then nominated to become an administrator, and must approved by a community consensus. Administrators don't have "power", they just help enforce the guidelines that the Wikipedia community has agreed on; they're considered "janitors". If you're noticing a pattern, everything on Wikipedia is by a communal consensus.

Now, articles just aren't deleted by rogue administrators. I have seen them try deleting articles without reason before, and they were stripped of their rights by the Arbitration Committee (a group of unpaid, educated volunteers who are elected in big elections by the Wikipedia community. Again, communal consensus).

Now, to the important thing: article deletion. There's three ways for an article to be deleted on Wikipedia: Speedy deletion, Proposed deletion, and articles for deletion. Speedy deletion is for obvious violations (attack pages, blatant advertising, blatant absence of notability, etc). Proposed deletion is for non-controversial deletions that don't qualify for speedy; there's a 5-day grace period given for anyone to contest it, and send it to articles for deletion. "Articles for Deletion" is a discussion page, where the community comes to a consensus on whether the article belongs or not.

The old "Above Top Secret" page was deleted in a proposed deletion. The deletion was approved by an administrator after 5 days, so obviously no one disagreed enough to contest the deletion. It was deleted under the reason "No evidence that this Internet forum meets our website notability guidelines". Keyword here is "evidence": there was probably no proof of notability. You can't just make an article about a website that sounds notable. You need references and specific points within the article that show its importance. It's exactly how you need to back up your words here on ATS.

Lets not always jump right to conspiracy, guys. Keep working on the current article you have, and it'll be there to stay. Put some more references within the article that prove that it's within the guidelines, to both prove your notability and to make the article better.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
eletion_policy
en.wikipedia.org...:Administrators
en.wikipedia.org...:Arbitration_Committee



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
it's still there, my bad. one must type it exactly



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
In my search to find something ~notable~ for the Wiki page I stumbled on
an 'encyclopedia dramtica' link that is scathing. There's even a tutorial on
how best to troll ATS.

I think somebody pooped in their chili...

Anyway...I was looking for a Coast to Coast link that didn't include Jim Mars.
George mentions ATS all the time on the show. Should be something
there useful Coast to Coast boasts 30 million regulars listeners.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Well... nuts.

I thought I had referenced ATS in one of my publications about the Internet (and yes, it would have counted as something they were looking for to establish the site as important/significant)... but I hadn't. I used and cited ATS in a poster presentation at an SfAA anthropology conference (along with other message boards) but grad student poster presentations don't count for anything.

No help here.

And yes, I can see why they'd say there's no significant publications.

Compare the citations for ATS with, say, Furrymuck's citations:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival
Anyway...I was looking for a Coast to Coast link that didn't include Jim Mars.
George mentions ATS all the time on the show. Should be something
there useful Coast to Coast boasts 30 million regulars listeners.


A "coast to coast" link would add credibility if someone can find him doing more than a sentence or two on ATS.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
This makes me angry.

I like looking for the Wikipedia pages of games i play or sights i frequent, and I have before noticed that ATS has no page. I don't understand why!

What's the solution?



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
They are getting tired of the idiots using wikipedia to promote their agendas. Maybe they thought this was one of them?


I have seen a lot of groups using wikipedia to further their agenda.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Good work CHAOS!

I have been looking. I have a login but I am unfamiliar with the format of the site.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I've never edited a Wikipedia page before today. Though I do develop websites, so that is helpful.

On another note, I'm busy at the moment, but I did find two rather good reviews of this website if anyone wants to incorporate them into the ATS Wikipedia page...they say some really great things about ATS...

www.helium.com...
www.dailytitan.com...
www.associatedcontent.com...

EDIT: Make that 3

[edit on 8/8/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I've never edited a Wikipedia page before today. Though I do develop websites, so that is helpful.

On another note, I'm busy at the moment, but I did find two rather good reviews of this website if anyone wants to incorporate them into the ATS Wikipedia page...they say some really great things about ATS...

www.helium.com...
www.dailytitan.com...
www.associatedcontent.com...

EDIT: Make that 3

[edit on 8/8/10 by CHA0S]



Thank you for sharing this. I believe the following to be 100% true:


The Web site’s success is in the civility and respect members display for one another and their desire for a level of higher thinking. It’s a place where conspiracy theorists and stubborn skeptics can join together because the site is managed in a way that discourages short posts with no substance and the chaos of insults, spam and hate speech.


From your second link. It is why i come here. I sure do have some problems with ATS, but i keep those to myself. My issues with the site are greatly overshadowed by the above statements truth, combined with the fact that i get exposure to some of the most profound thinkers I have personally met (this is your nod, SchroDog
).




top topics



 
65
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join