Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/Archive 4

Attention: This page has been on VfD SIX FREAKING TIMES:

• April 30, 2004 – May 7, 2004
• September 2, 2004 – September 8, 2004
• September 27, 2004 – October 5, 2004
• December 25, 2004 – December 31, 2004
• June 30, 2005 – July 1, 2005
• July 8, 2005 – July 14, 2005

It has survived all of these VfDs, each with more keep votes than the previous one. Please do not list it again. You are only wasting your time and everybody else's. --TexasDex July 1, 2005 21:07 (UTC)

After the sixth VfD conclusively showed that there is no consensus to delete, I think any further VfD nominations are disruptive and in bad faith, and should be ignored and removed on sight. I have also edited the comment at the top of the article to reflect this.--TexasDex 03:57, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Archive

Talk archive at Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America/Archive1 22:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To 216.254.64.246 and User:Andrew pmk

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite_sources and tell me why you think you should be able to add questioned statements to this article without having to back them up. This is not about the GNAA, it is about standards. silsor 04:35, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

NONE of what's listed here is properly sourced.

Silsor, none of the supposed "facts" or " accomplishments" in this article are properly sourced or even real. A few links to a few websites does not a "proper" source make.

GNAA has been known to lie -- that's a cornerstone of their trolling. I think it's fine if you want to have an article that doesn't follow facts at all, but don't subject some people's statements to fact-checking while ignoring the bulk of the article. To do so is propaganda and essentially a free advertisement for GNAA on Wikipedia -- which is expressly against the rules.

Once again, source everything or source nothing. The choice is yours. No doublestandards.

I don't care about the material that was already in the article, because I had nothing to do with it. I removed the material that you added, because I noticed the addition. You added the material twice, then reversed yourself completely and removed most of the other material in the article, then added your material back, then accused ME of having a double standard. You used three paragraphs to reply to me without even answering my question! silsor 21:51, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose this can be worked on. Many people (both GNAA and non-GNAA) have spent a long time sourcing most of the claims in the article. I personally disagree that links to websites are not proper sources, but if you could point to the specific parts that are not sourced, or have an untrusted source, then everyone can work on it, search for new sources, and decide whether it can be sourced or should be removed. There are no double standards, it's just about being constructive or not. Sam Hocevar 10:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The parent commenter's remark is, frankly, false. The GNAA is a phenomenon confined almost exclusively to the Internet. So why are popular websites not acceptable as sources? What would be acceptable? Books? It's not possible to get a printed source for absolutely every statement a Wikipedia entry makes. Besides, almost all of the claims in the article as it stands have a corresponding reference, either as a link at the end of a sentence or in the 'References' section at the bottom of the article. --Jacj 04:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD AGAIN?

this is retarded

VfD

I have added to VfD again, not because I want it to be deleted, but because there were irregularities with the last vote. I am the admin in charge of this vote this time. No editors with less than 100 edits will have their vote counted. No personal attacks will be allowed, they will be removed on sight. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)

hehehe, ta bu, congrats, you just inducted the GNAA article into the wikipedia wall of fame: Most VfDs to an article, ever :) Project2501a 8 July 2005 20:22 (UTC)

That implies that there is another article somewhere that has been VfD'd five times. Which piques my curiosity. What topic other than the Gay Nigger Association of America could possibly cause such controversy? --TexasDex 04:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

One more thing: please do not add in the article the information about it being the article that has been through the VFD process the most. Those will just be reverted on sight. Thank you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I just added a blurb under trivia to reflect the article's VfD status. It's notable. Ghost Freeman ^{T | E} / _{C | D} 20:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed your edit, since it has been stated (not only by me) that having the VFD information in the actual article space is not needed. It should be more sutable for the talk page. Plus, if you noticed, that information is listed in the hidden text at the top of the article, so only the people who are editing that page will know. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Didn't see that or any mention on the talk page (I make a bad habit of editing before reading talk.) Oops. Ghost Freeman ^{T | E} / _{C | D} 20:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It's alright, all is forgiven. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Name data

I have reverted edits removing a paragraph on the name of the GNAA. The paragraph states:

• The name itself has been designed to shock and offend.
• Homosexuality is still an uncomfortable subject for some, and the term "Nigger" is a slang term for black people, considered by many to be a slur.
• The terms "Association of America" is somewhat misleading because the organisation is open to participation to anyone from countries other than the United States.

Let's review. The first statement iss NPOV; the name is clearly designed to shock and offend, and it belongs to an organization whose purpose is the same. The second statement says homosexuality is uncomfortable for some. It is. "Nigger" is considered a slur, and is a slang term. The third statement is true, because GNAA is open to non-American membership. If you disagree with my reasoning, please explain why below, rather than needlessly reverting. --Scimitar 8 July 2005 23:16 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with you in terms of the NPOV-ness of it; I'm not sure how someone could find it to be POV. My 2¢ --Dave2 8 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)

No clue on that one, either. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

I know the reason: the editor who removed it has made the mistake of assuming that because the statements might be uncomfortable to some people that it is not a neutral statement. For instance, the very use of the word "nigger" in any discussion is, in general, frowned upon, even when discussing the way it is used and not actually endorsing said usages. Many people would like to see acceptance of homosexuality, and any recognition that many people are still uncomfortable with this can make some of those people quite upset. Therefore, because while these statements are true, their reality makes those people uncomfortable and upset and thus they cannot see that the statements themselves describe but do not endorse the position given. Thus they see the comments as non-neutral, even though the statements are in fact neutral. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)

FAC

Uh oh. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)

Ok, I found out that the guy who added this article to the WP:FAC pages only has a few edits (the FAC being his fourth). He was the same guy who called himself Dr. Pigger H. Jeugasser (he did spell it Jewgasser once, see [1]). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)

GNAA on VfD factoid

I'm removing the "factoid" of GNAA being on VfD so many times. It's a result of botched processes and trolling, and has no significance to general notability. Please don't add it back. Fuzheado | Talk 02:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

To ChocolateBoy

Stop removing information like you have been doing. I was just forced to use the rollback button. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The article isn't about "yu".

chocolateboy 05:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Neither is it about YOU. Stop taking out information! (reword) I don't see anything on the talk page about the material you removed. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of the comment is to discourage frivolous vfds, not to wibble on about the motivation of the vfder, or what you will or will not do if someone dares to edit the article. As mentioned in the link above, you're outvoted when it comes to the sig. And, as has happened before, you've blindly reverted the other corrections without, as you put it, "taking [sic] out things on the talk page".

chocolateboy 06:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

That's crap. I have been mentioning things on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Speaking about VFD's, what will happen if someone creates a 7th VFD after this one is over? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I for one will delete it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 12:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I concur, and I have updated the VfD warning at the top of the page to reflect this. --TexasDex 04:06, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

The GNAA award them a distinguised service award? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, will Jimbo and the other higher ups want to get involved with this or no, since I know people will trash the vote since your running it, your rules, etc. Man, it sucks being an admin, doesn't it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't hurt me, it does hurt Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a question. Why, when I'z reading my en-cyclo-pedia in da morning, do I find this crazy ass shit about some gay niggaz? Do you think that I would want to be reading about some stupid ass gay niggaz? Why would I want to see some gay nigga when I'z having my breakfast in the morning? I don't want to see no gay niggaz, that stupid shit is fucked up. Angry Nigger 15:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Then, just click Random Page and you will see something else. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia

There needs to be a section on their vandalisms/vote rigging here on Wikipedia, seeing as that's the most notable and well-publicized thing they've done. I'm too busy with WP:PAC to do it myself, though. Almafeta 17:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If the Harry Potter stuff is true, then we should be albe to hear about that, if not, we will remove the reference. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Ignore this, considering this is like the 5th time he/she claims this, by now it should be considered trolling until the furry explains how the GNAA "rigged the vote". Pigger 13:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Is also wrong about it being the most notable thing "they" have done. I placed the GNAA article on VfD a 6th time, and I'm not part of the GNAA. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

On their website

They have claimed victory over wikipedia.

GNAUK

Yes, it belongs here as what Sam has done. If the GNAA was the primary organization the GNAUK is modeled from, then it has to be mentioned. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter

I did a Google search here, with the criteria "GNAA Harry Potter." All I got was the GNA UK (or GNAA UK, both spellings were given). Based on this, I do not think that should be in the article, since the GNAA are not the only people who were involved in leaking the new book out, and no fuss was given by the press based on my searches. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The GNAA said it was fake: http://www.gnauk.co.uk/gnaa_hp/. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It does tend to show their notoriety though, after all they are beginning to be accused of trollish things they didn't do. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, then we should have a section of stuff they actually did and stuff they did not do. Fair enough? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

http://www.gnauk.co.uk/gnaa_hp2/ <- this was hidden from public to stop any potential lawsuits before the book was actually released.

If it was hidden, how could you find it? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)