Commodore Remix

merman wrote:I wrote the article in issue 9 of RG...

Yeah, we dug out a copy - and I should've remembered it was you who wrote it!

Chris Abbott wrote:Do you think we should have a new forum rank of "Notable"?

As long as it is impossible to achieve.

C64GLeN wrote:

Chris Abbott wrote:Do you think we should have a new forum rank of "Notable"?

As long as it is impossible to achieve.

Yeah, most people will not be able to reach it

Could one of you please correct the spelling of footnote 39. Currently it stands "Nostalgia and Retrogaming in Digitail Cluture."

I think we've done what we can. No we can only press PRAY on tape, and hope the deciding editor is a reasonable person.

Hey! Where's that drum roll smiley gone when you need it?

Yeah, I think it rests now. The Fantastic Four has stopped writing on both the article and the deletion discussion page. I've been quite fierce in my last entries because I just got enough of the ubiquitous circumvention of semantics and reasoning.

The downside to this issue is that I'm never going to spend time on adding stuff for Wikipedia because, as I've written on wp, I know that someone is going to delete it again... someday... just because he can. And think he's done a good deed and even gets praise for it from his peers. Sad on so many levels.

Argh! I couldn't help making another comment. But then again "rabid" is just a nasty way of saying "passionate".

Guys, the typing error in reference 39 still remains. Currently it is Digitail Cluture when it should be of course Digital Culture. It is amazing that those editors are so nitpicking about capitalisation of certain name and cannot pick up a glaring typing error as above.

In any case I think you've handled the whole episode with dignity with excellent counter arguments thereby making their accusations more absurd than they appear to be at face level.

I have actually given up hope. Now they claim we're trying to mask lack of notability by adding the new references.

It's just a f*cking farce. I don't understand why they even pretend to give us a chance here.

Makke wrote:I have actually given up hope. Now they claim we're trying to mask lack of notability by adding the new references.

It's just a f*cking farce. I don't understand why they even pretend to give us a chance here.

That just makes them look more biased then ever. It's like Solicitors: just because they say it with authority, doesn't mean it's true.

"Stop trying to mask your lack of evidence with evidence, dammit!"

Or:
"Objection!"
"On what grounds?"
"This is devastating to my case!"

They're basically thinking like lawyers: which means saying anything.

Chris

After reading this:
http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/1 ... wikipedia/

I've come to realize that the Wikipedia I once knew and thought the world of no longer exists.

Makke wrote:After reading this:
http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/1 ... wikipedia/

I've come to realize that the Wikipedia I once knew and thought the world of no longer exists.

Reading that, I too abandoned all hope.

How is it that things never seem to get better... only worse? Entopy, I guess...

Chris

Chris Abbott wrote:

Makke wrote:After reading this:
http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/1 ... wikipedia/

I've come to realize that the Wikipedia I once knew and thought the world of no longer exists.

Reading that, I too abandoned all hope.

How is it that things never seem to get better... only worse? Entopy, I guess...

Chris

I feel like I was in the Matrix and than I took the pill and woke up. Because of this individual I've lost all respect for Wikipedia.

Hmmm,then something happened: Marked for rescue.

beyond wrote:Hmmm,then something happened: Marked for rescue.

What does that imply?

While reading the whole discussion, it seems odd that one of their arguments is that not enough PPOT fans are turning up for that discussion to claim notability, and then complaining about canvassing, conflict of interest and single-use accounts for the people who do turn up. Not to mention that as newbies they'd be laughed at and treated with wordy contempt.

I remember feeling like you do now when I was trying to persuade the Institute of Contemporary Arts that we were an artform. Trying to explain to a mid-20s pretentious artistic diva how computer music and its live performance was important? Same feeling as I get from this discussion. If it ain't pretty, young and sexy, it ain't art, and it ain't worthwhile, fans be damned.

BTW, this post in no way implies that PPOT is not pretty, young and sexy.

Chris