Wikipedia
-
What makes me really angry is this:
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2011)
I added citations to everything for NodeBB!
NONE of the other forum entries have this! Not one of them! -.-
He is such a di**
And he is German too -.- I hate my country. Most toxic players. Most toxic cheaters in game. Most toxic Wikipedia contributors ^^
-
@ApfelUser Isn't there a possibility that we can bring this to the light of a Wikipedia administrator? I'll have a look around, see how we can report him.
-
He wants the article first. So again:
Does someone still have the old copy of the wikipedia:NodeBB article? Because when you click on the link you get the message that this article has existed before and got deleted due to:
No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event)
I'd like to take a look at it, rewrite it a bit and then post it with the message that NodeBB is in the forum list now too.
-
This is literally becoming a contest of who can shout the loudest
-
Isn't that like most things in life?
-
as @julian said, the old NodeBB article up again. We would really appreciate you guys helping in expanding the article. Small contributions help too! It is so that the wikipedia editor's see that the page is active & maintained. We don't want it to be deleted right away again
-
Jeez. Wiki editors are weird. You would think some information was better than no information but nooo. Got to regulate! Not to mention that the comparison article says nothing about having the main article first.
Let's hope the articles get to stay this time.
Edit: Spoke too soon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NodeBB
God damn it. How does one reply to this internet hotshot? I've stayed out of wiki wars for years but since this could have helped me greatly a few months ago as I went over that exact list.
-
Nominated for deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NodeBB
Please chime in and defend here!
Please refrain from ad hominem attacks against YannickFran. Cohesive, sane arguments will win this for us.
-
Just to get on a lighter topic, should we not be focusing on spreading NodeBB to other sites as well... Maby with some less insane users
-
Always up for that. After the article was initially deleted in 2013, I thought "oh well, it's just Wikipedia". Not really worth the stress of defending our notability as there are lots of sites promoting us anyhow
We're top of the list here! I like that a lot
-
Thanks guys for helping
I made some changes from the original 2013 article (which to be fair, had a whole bunch of "marketing" talk). It's now pretty neutral I would think.If it gets deleted then well I don't know anymore haha I give up and I will post a new topic 2 years from now and try again. In the meantime, feel free to use KeyboardBB or whatever else that has a calendar plugin
Also, just echoing @julianlam, please don't antagonize anybody
EDIT:
@pitaj no offense to your calendar plugin haha, it just seemed weird that it would be one of the most important criteria for forum software
-
Please add another comment to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NodeBB including
'''Keeping''' or '''Keep'''This is necessary according to Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion
-
Battle rages on. I've mostly given up trying to make a case for nodeBB as someone points out arbitrary rules or guidelines that fit their PoV and few of the participants fathom how modern software evolves. Perhaps they are right and nodeBB should get more coverage before it can get an article, but I'm going to suggest deletion of that horrid comparison article either way. I never look up software on WP, but the stuff that's there should be less misleading.
I started making an argument for nodeBB based on the various rules and guidelines but after reading the fifth wall of text I simply gave up. As the WP user 69.204.153.39 points out, the guidelines and whatnot are fairly bad. The others do have a point in that this is not the place to discuss changing the rules.
I can't help feeling that this is a catch 22. There are really no major blogs or sites dedicated to forums and the likes to use as a source. I searched for just that a month ago. Forums are probably regarded as outdated in the modern web but there are a lot of them out there. It seems strange that everything web is being modernised, but for forums people are happy to go with good'ol LAMP. phpBB3 is fairly new but it looks and feels like something ten years old.
Ah, well. Fun while it lasted. I hope you guys can get som good coverage and keep on fighting for the good cause. It's worth it.
-
@TiaZzz Ugh, I really don't understand this literal contest of shit throwing here. I found it a good article, its a bit bare-bones but that can be changed. Wikipedia has these awful standards, if someone disagrees with the topic be prepared for a month long discussion between 2 groups. (Yey :|)
