Save the I-Mockery Wikipedia article :o

[Mockery]

Interesting. Somebody just emailed me saying that they were worried because the I-Mockery entry on Wikipedia is being considered for deletion. Very odd since it's an informative piece about the site's history, and it details things far better than any single page here on I-Mockery does. It's more of a compilation of all the details and notables about the site from over the years. Fortunately, two people have already responded to it by saying that it should not be deleted.

If you think it's worth keeping, please do us a favor and join in the discussion on Wikipedia where it's being talked about and show your support for keeping the article alive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/I-Mockery

A bunch of people have added onto that entry over time and it'd be a shame to see it get taken down, especially considering how much truly useless stuff people add to wikipedia on a daily basis.

[Chojin]

uh, how the hell do you post there?

[Stak]

uh, how the hell do you post there?

Click the "edit this page" tab near the top of the page

It probably wouldn't hurt to create an account beforehand, either

[Chojin]

also, lol @ "NO SOURCES ARE CITED FOR I-MOCKERY.COM WHERE OH WHERE WILL PEOPLE LOOK TO GET THIS INFORMATION"

[MLE]

What other sources do you need other than the sources themselves (i.e., the direct websites)

aren't they first-hand sources?

[Chojin]

guys it's sad but you just have to accept it i-mockery must be deleted to make space for more articles like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_members_appearing_in_adult_movies)

at least THEY have SOURCES

[soundtest]

So to meet Wikipedia's standards the article just needs some references - other than I-Mockery itself - that acknowledge its existence? One seems to be posted - does anybody know of others?

[Dr. Boogie]

Do they need just links from other sites?

[zeldasbiggestfan]

Coudl we use this thread as an excuse to keep it up?

[MetalMilitia]

Could you just copy and paste the whole wiki article to a page somewhere on the main i-mock site then link to it on wiki as proof the info is correct?

[darnin]

I can't believe that anyone who would vote to delete a Wiki article about a great site such as I-Mockery would have an IQ higher than that of a floorboard. A very unintelligent floorboard.

[Dr. V]

I-Mockery's message forums are also moderated by a small group of people including:

Tara
ArrowX
Seven Force
Matt Harty and his Posse
Mad Max

Wha? I was under the impression he sucked.

[Mockery]

Yeah, well whoever just changed that staff section, you realize that doesn't help things when immature dicks make edits that have to be reverted. :/

[Sethomas]

Well, last time I read it, the whole thing oozed with transparency that the wikipedia article was probably written by the webmaster himself. OR HERSELF? WHO KNOWS. Even if that wasn't true, it sure does read that way. They generally don't like that kind of writing because it tends to make its articles more promotional than a purportedly non-profit organization wants to be entangled with.

[Protoclown]

Hey Rog, can't YOU just post a response on there and tell them that the information in the entry is relevant and accurate?

[Mockery]

Nah, I don't think they care about what I would say about it. What's odd is they seem to want some kind of outside sources other than I-Mockery to prove... what? That it's a popular site? That it exists? That people use this Wiki entry?A simple search on Google will confirm that. It's been in magazines, shows, linked with other popular sites as some have mentioned, etc etc... guess I'm just not understanding why they feel something like that isn't useful. And the whole "make space for other stuff" thing is a farce since it's a page of text that hardly takes up any space. Plus, I-Mockery is linked in a bajillion other Wikipedia articles as a resource (I constantly get traffic from a variety of them) - so that's another thing that would be odd to have it removed. As for the historical stuff, well I can't imagine any other sites that would list that other than I-Mockery itself such as this article about the history of visionary darkness: http://www.i-mockery.com/visionary/about.php

But the richmond.com article that someone linked to should be enough to suffice as a relevant source, so I guess we'll just see. I'm on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2198930/), maybe that would suffice as proof as far as I-Mockery being on TV or something? Writing for Cracked & Lampoon? Just go to their sites... I still get emails about the Wal-Mart parody (http://www.cracked.com/walmart/index.htm) all the time. Radio talk show interviews (http://www.i-mockery.com/rog-radio.zip)... what more do they need? haha stupid Wiki politics...

Another reputable source:
http://www.sacbee.com/154/story/13288.html

[Mockery]

And some more:
http://maximmagazine.com/articles/index.aspx?a_id=3874

http://www.wildwildwestmar.com/index.cfm?t=blog


I'd post them myself but clearly they want people other than me to share this information for some reason. So yeah, if any of you want to go onto that page and share all of these links I've been posting here, hopefully they will realize that there's plenty of valid sources for the material scattered around the web.

[Chojin]

my edit may have been a little hostile

[Zen444]

The site is run by beaurucratic fucks.

Don't worry about it.

[Supafly345]

Fark is trivial. So is comedy central, cracked, national lampoon, and whatever magazines have mentioned the site.

[Supafly345]

Can somebody put the WickTheWok's account up for deletion?

[Protoclown]

I noticed that some of Wickthewok's articles that he has contributed to only have ONE "reliable source". But I guess he'll let those slide because that's all shit that he's interested in.

[AChimp]

Wickethewok sounds like a douche nozzle. "Waahh... wikipedia must be the most accurate source of information anywhere!!!"

[Chojin]

how do we suggest to wikipedia that wicke's one-source articles get marked for deletion? it only seems fair.

[mburbank]

So, what are they looking to be verified? I-mocks existence?

I suggest a letter writing campaign. Seriously. It could be fun, and we could chronicle it on the site.

Mock, we're listed on Crack's list of friends, maybe we could get someone from tehre to send an email.

I'm not at AL familliar with the whole Wiki deal, but I think an assault on their sensabilites is called for.

[Chojin]

Someone posted a link from msnbc about last year's halloween season. I wonder if that will fuel WickeTheOneAndOnly's teenage angst.

[mburbank]

I gave 'em my what for, for what it's worth.

Douchebags.

[Chojin]

OH DEAR, WICKE HAS LAID DOWN THE IRON GAUNTLET.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8b/Stop_hand.svg/30px-Stop_hand.svg.png It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. Wickethewok 21:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but as you have failed to leave a source for your passive-aggressive nonsense, I have little choice but to mark your PM for deletion.

[mburbank]

Watch out, Choj!

This... Wikthewok seems VERY VERY POWERFUL... in this one piddly ass arena. But a man AS OBVIOUSLY POWERFUL even in a teeny weeny, near anonymous way IS PROBABLY POWERFUL AND DANGEROUS IN REAL LIFE, TOO!!

'Wikthewok'. Honestly. What a tool. Imagine this guy, scanning wikpeia pages day in day out, looking for a reason to delete them. Someone pought to teach him how to masterbate.

[Chojin]

Oh man this dude has CREDENTIALS.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/WMBarnstar.png/100px-WMBarnstar.png
The Working Man's Barnstar
I present you this working man's barnstar in recognition
and appreciation to your tireless efforts in the cleanup
of List of weapons in Halo 2 Note: Content has since been merged to Halo 2
Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk

I bet when he does wikis, he just cites that award right there, and people have no choice but to surrender to his impervious cone of logic.

[mburbank]

I may well have just wet myself in terror.

[Chojin]

TIRELESS efforts.

This evokes the mental image of some butterball gasping and sweating as he slaves away on an internet site.

HALO 2 WEAPONS. Christ. What a fucking knob.

[Emu]

I wonder, do they hand out e-awards for the Ph.D.s who continuously update the anatomy pages, or is it just for queer things like that?

[Chojin]

I hereby present Zeldasbiggestfan with!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/WMBarnstar.png/100px-WMBarnstar.png
The Working Man's Barnstar
I present you this working man's barnstar in recognition
and appreciation to your tireless efforts in the cleanup
of Sexual Characteristics Of Characters In Sonic The
Hedgehog 2 Note: Content has since been merged to
Sexual Characteristics of Video Game Characters (Male,
Gay)
Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk

[Protoclown]

I still don't get why this Ewok guy gets to have articles about electronic music he likes on there without citing any damn sources...

[Emu]

Did anyone bring that up to him? :rolleyes

[Zomboid]

"I am a strong believer in making Wikipedia a more trustworthy source of information. While vandals certainly bring down Wikipedia's legitimacy, articles about your friends' garage band and lists of Street Fighter moves don't help much either. While I admit I am rather demanding with respect to verifiability, reliable sources, and no original research, I believe it is best for Wikipedia. While Wikipedia certainly is home to some fantastic articles you wouldn't see anywhere else, this does not mean there need to be articles for every Yu-Gi-Oh card, every unit in StarCraft, or every forum meme. Many times on AFD, I've seen people ask for newly created articles to be allowed time for "organic expansion". This is a bad idea. Allowing for "organic expansion", if there actually happens to be any, just means that when the article is nominated for deletion a month later, its editor(s) will be upset about losing hours of work instead of minutes. The most important piece of information I can offer regarding deletion is this: third-party reliable sources trump all. If you have non-trivial reliable sources on a subject, it is most likely verifiable, notable, and not original research. If you don't have these sources, then chances are it fails those respective policies. So, please, when adding information to Wikipedia, always cite your sources."

What a douchebag.

[mburbank]

I think 'working man's barnstar' needs to be an emoticon. To convey a sense of seriousness and dedication that words just can't... do... that word describy thing at. About dedication. And tirelessness.

[Protoclown]

Did anyone bring that up to him? :rolleyes

Well damn, I was about to do it but somebody beat me to it right as I was going in there to write it up.

But they did a much better job than I would have done, because I wouldn't have said "physician, heal thyself.".

[AChimp]

I wrote that :O

If you want to combat the greasy Internet nerd, you must hit him in the soft doughy middle with famous quotations!

[Chojin]

I replied in an edit again, too. As far as I can tell, he wants an unbiased 3rd party account of I-Mockery's history. Which is ludicrous.

[Emu]

The supervisor thing made me giggle.

[Protoclown]

I replied in an edit again, too. As far as I can tell, he wants an unbiased 3rd party account of I-Mockery's history. Which is ludicrous.

Someone should put together a REALLY crappy website doing just that.

[Chojin]

Some other catthrasher posted a link to this thread, obviously to highlight our NEFARIOUS DEEDS or something.

Hi WICKETHEWOK! I'm really very sorry you were made fun of at your magnet school, but you've totally got to stop taking it out on people who write ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRIES, you COLOSSAL FAGGOT.

[Emu]

omg ugsy wev'e beenfound out!! DELEAT THE THREDE!

[Chojin]

At any rate, the dude seems to be beyond all reason. Does someone want to get the e-mail addresses of some real administrators to whom we can appeal?

[Emu]

I guess someone deleted that whole spiel about the link to this thread.

Edit: and now it's back

[Fathom Zero]

A funny idea popped into my head for a Wikipedia Mockery.

[Chojin]

The wiki for one of my favorite webcomics just got deleted in its entirety today, too. What the hell is going on?

[Emu]

Is the site fucking up for anyone else?

[Esuohlim]

Yeah, someone just mentioned SA :rolleyes

[Protoclown]

OMG GUYS I CAN'T LOAD I-MOCKERY

THE SITE IS DOWN!

LOOKS LIKE WICKET THE EWOK DELETED IT :(

[Zomboid]

I can still load it without any problems. I'd like to think he's maybe given up, but I think his little award there means we're in for a LONG HARD BATTLE.

[Mockery]

Yeah, someone just mentioned SA :rolleyes
Hrm, well it is a good point. A lot of other entertainment/humor sites are on Wikipedia displaying similar information. So if I-Mockery was to be removed, they'd have to remove sites like Something Awful, Newgrounds, Fark, etc etc. I've still yet to see a valid reason for their removal of I-Mockery other than the "opinion" of this wickethewok guy.

[soundtest]

This whole battle against this self-appointed wikipedia czar idiot deserves its own section in the I-Mockery article under the heading "Wikipedia Controversy" or something. I don't know enough about the Wikipedia hierarchy: can this idiot alone determine if the article should be removed? Is there a way to report him for his inconsistent 'clean up' methods? I would hope so - his decisions are obviously more self-serving than they are following any Wikipedia guidelines, considering his own submissions.

[Zen444]

I blame Mongo.

[Protoclown]

I took a closer look at the Something Awful Wikipedia entry and saw that out of 17 references, 11 of them refer directly back to SomethingAwful.com. Pointed that out in the discussion thread, not that I think it'll matter.

[Chojin]

Srsly, get some e-mails going. This is ridiculous.

[Protoclown]

Emails to who?

Besides, I don't think any of the I-Mockery staff can get too involved, because they call that a "conflict of interest".

[Azrael]

I wouldn't mind sending an E-mail, but I have no clue who actually runs that damn site.

[Protoclown]

Looks like another editor is involved now. The article needs one more "reliable" source before it won't be deleted. I don't know what makes a source reliable exactly, as we've given plenty of sources, but unless there's another one that pops up in the next day or so, I guess it's going to get deleted.

I had no idea that Wikipedia had gotten so anal.

If I'm reading GRBerry right he seems to suggest that if the article had a "references" section, that might be enough to save it, but I don't know anything about putting references on there, and I can't contribute to the article itself anyway since I'm part of I-Mockery's staff and that's against their "conflict of interest" rules.

EDIT: Looks like we have to meet one of the three criteria here for the article to stay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB

[Mockery]

Besides, I don't think any of the I-Mockery staff can get too involved, because they call that a "conflict of interest".
Yep they (I mean "he") probably would. And it's not like the producers from the TV shows or the editors from Lampoon/Cracked are keeping an eye on the I-Mockery Wikipedia entry, nor would I ever ask them to login just to prove that we've worked with them to satisfy the power trip of some random internet schmuck. Aside from countless other entertainment/humor sites already being on Wikipedia, you'd think the fact that the articles I've done for other places like Cracked are online and the TV appearances are on IMDB and the thousands of Google search results would be enough to suffice. And as someone said, the Richmond.com article clearly proves as a valid source so the discussion should've ended right then and there. And his quick dismissal of all the other links that were posted (some of which were not "blogs" or just links to the site as he claimed) simply shows what an unprofessional chump we're dealing with here. It's all opinion-based... his opinion.

Looks like another editor is involved now. The article needs one more "reliable" source before it won't be deleted. I don't know what makes a source reliable exactly, as we've given plenty of sources, but unless there's another one that pops up in the next day or so, I guess it's going to get deleted.
Here, I looked through some boxes and found a few magazines which talked about I-Mockery. I scanned them in so if one of you would like to share this with them, perhaps this will suffice:
http://www.i-mockery.net/media/yahoo-internet-life-2001.jpg
http://www.i-mockery.net/media/maxim-feb-2001.jpg

Here's another URL that they might find useful:
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=459495

We've provided so many sources it's absurd and we're clearly making an effort here to keep the article intact and accurate... something most other entries wouldn't even try to do. If Wikipedia can't see that, then that site is truly going to hell in a handbasket quickly.

Thanks for your continued help in trying to save a valuable resource for those who are searching for background information on I-Mockery and its history.

[soundtest]

What about Rog's TV appearances? Although the videos are hosted here, the content is actually from an 'external' source and they do prove the existence of the site and that it is significant enough to get some broadcast exposure, which is more than most sites can say.

Does anybody on here have a blog that gets any hits? If an article on I-Mockery was put up on there I'm guessing we could reference that as a source.

This whole thing is really, really stupid and is making me lose a lot of respect for Wikipedia. Having rules is fine, but this is just unnecessary red tape that a site that is as obviously well known as I-Mockery should be exempt from. I really wish there was a way to bring attention to this user 'Wickethewok' and his inconsistency though...

[Protoclown]

I don't suppose you've won any awards or anything for anything on the site? Cuz just ONE of those would make us "notable".

And Soundtest, linking to the actual videos of Roger on various TV shows is a really good idea...even if the stuff is hosted HERE, it's still an external source. There've been a lot of links posted in that discussion thread, but has anybody posted those yet?

[kahljorn]

here's two things you guys should consider doing:

A) E-mail them, express you have a "conflict of interest", then tell them you run the site and the information is all accurate within the wiki. I think a "Conflict of interest" only occurs when you actually write it about yourself, i think you can still express that it's true and informative without it being a burden.

B) Use I-mockery as a referance? (also see optional paths C part 2!)

Optional paths C) # "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation."

I think you guys have done that before

There's also th eone about appearing on tv or being in a publication and one of the examples is
The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired.

Haven't you guys done something with The Guardian along with a ton of other things? referance/link to their articles/reviews whatever if possible.

[GADZOOKS]

I don't see what's the big deal, no one knows it's there unless they search for it. I thought they were trying to collect knowledge, not just nit-picking what they like and don't.

Now if this was an electronic music website.

[soundtest]

I don't suppose you've won any awards or anything for anything on the site? Cuz just ONE of those would make us "notable".

And Soundtest, linking to the actual videos of Roger on various TV shows is a really good idea...even if the stuff is hosted HERE, it's still an external source. There've been a lot of links posted in that discussion thread, but has anybody posted those yet?

I'll add the Yahoo and Maxim articles to the External Links. If anybody can post links to the TV appearances, I'll add those as references to the Boo Berry section and wherever else is applicable and this "Marked for Deletion" shit should be over and done with.

[Mockery]

This whole thing is really, really stupid and is making me lose a lot of respect for Wikipedia. Having rules is fine, but this is just unnecessary red tape that a site that is as obviously well known as I-Mockery should be exempt from. I really wish there was a way to bring attention to this user 'Wickethewok' and his inconsistency though...
It truly does seem like a grudge against the site itself, but regardless, we have given more than ample proof especially if somebody includes links to those magazines articles I just took the time to scan in. And yes, the TV show listings on IMDB should suffice.

I don't suppose you've won any awards or anything for anything on the site?
Sure, back in the day anybody who had a site could give away their own little "awards" but awards for sites are a thing of the past. The only awards left are the "Webby" awards, which I refuse to participate in since you have to pay to even be a part of it for consideration. I'd rather it involve no payment and just be about the site fans voting for what sites they love.

Here's another random company mentioning I-Mockery in one of their press releases in case you guys wanna try showing this link to them: http://www.morbidindustries.com/productNews.aspx?PNID=6

And Kahljorn, yes The Guardian UK ran my old Valentine's Day article a while back, but I'm unable to locate it online, and have no idea where a copy of it is stored in all my boxes.

[Mockery]

I'll add the Yahoo and Maxim articles to the External Links. If anybody can post links to the TV appearances, I'll add those as references to the Boo Berry section and wherever else is applicable and this "Marked for Deletion" shit should be over and done with.
I would add it to the deletion discussion too, not just the Wiki article, so that the editors are sure to see it.

As for the TV appearances, the only one I have a copy of online is the Comedy Central one which you can get here:
http://www.popnko.com/imock/booberry/booberrybig.zip

The other two are on VHS tapes and I don't have a VCR to transfer them to the computer with currently. I would assume that the IMDB link would be more than enough to show evidence of this as IMDB only posts listings after verifying the information with TV show's producers/writers/etc.

[kahljorn]

it says on that site that even webby awards work :O so if you do have some piece of shit web award lying around it might help your case, but really you probably already have enough stuff with the television apparances, articles and reviews.. they also mentioned the wire in their example i think ;O

lol wikthewok is probably some jerk who posted here and you guys gave him too harsh of a newbie beating so he's using his wiki magic against you.

[soundtest]

Actually they could both be used to create a References section. Let me just figure out how to properly create a reference in Wikipedia that conforms to their standards. I wouldn't want the page to get marked for not following appropriate style guidelines. :rolleyes

[kahljorn]

it's the same as referances on a paper/essay.

[soundtest]

I'm talking about the tags. Feel free to go do it if you know how.

[kahljorn]

sure ill try but I'm not sure what a tag is exactly i just thought you were talking about referance citations for websites :O

[kahljorn]

don't knowif anybody found this already:
http://www.vh1.com/shows/dyn/totally_obsessed/82028/episode_about.jhtml

[AChimp]

Wicket is a raver, so it's obvious why he's hating on I-Mockery. :rolleyes

[soundtest]

OK I added the references. Feel free to change them, it being Wikipedia and all. :P

[Stabby]

This is completely moronic that it would be "nominated for
deletion."
I tried to add the Port Huron link but can't figure out wikipedia's rediculous linking/editing system, so i did the best i could. I found THAT doing a lexisnexis search for "www.i-mockery.com" and i'm sure there would be more for other related searches.
What else could this idiot need? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wikipedia isn't exactly thought very highly of in the 'professional world' (didn't Stephen Colbert make a mockery of it before?) I would personally never use it for medical research. Seems it's primary value is a pop-culture index. So what would be the purpose of deleting a notable, influential humour website? This wikewok jackass just seems to be another pathetic, uninformed loser on the internet on a power-trip. Perhaps this is WHY wikipedia is somewhat of a joke?

[kahljorn]

I've never gotten unreliable information from wikipedia, medical or otherwise. part of the reason for this is their stringent editing/deletion process which keeps stupid assholes from making constantly stupid posts..
This isn't a medical article though so i don't see the importance of referances, and it's clearly "well written" enough to be an encyclopedia entry.

thanks for adding the vh1 entry soundtest i was just about to do that :O

[Protoclown]

Perhaps you're right, Stabby, but given that Wikipedia is largely a pop culture reference, I-Mockery definitely belongs on there.

I just wanted to thank everybody who came together in support of the wikipedia entry. I don't even know who initially put it up on the site, but it's clear that more than a few people have spent their time doing the research and making sure everything on the site is correct, so it'd be a damn shame to see it go. Thanks again for the support, guys.

[Emu]

I don't get why this Wicket guy has such a boner over getting this article deleted. It's like he has a fucking agenda or something.

[Protoclown]

I don't think he has anything in particular against I-Mockery, I just think he's out to earn another prestigious barnstar for his diligence.

EDIT: Nevermind, he just replied saying none of those links talk about the site itself. He said as a compromise he could see maybe making an entry about Roger Barr and getting rid of the I-Mockery entry...WTF?

[Emu]

What in the fuck is a "barnstar" anyway?

[Protoclown]

I don't know exactly, but I'm pretty sure it's prestigious.

[Stabby]

Well the entry is clearly well-written, informative, insightful, accurate and useful. I mean, not as useful as knowing the specifics on all the Halo 2 weapons, that information will clearly stand the test of time.

[Emu]

OMG, guys! Maybe we can all get these:

The Original Barnstar
You are being rewarded this barnstar for inspiring others to rescue articles nominated for deletion. I took a leaf out of your book and it looks like I have managed to rescue Laura Hannant from deletion. Bravo! David L Rattigan 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[kahljorn]

lol roger barr

we should change thiswebsite to I-rogerbarr

[Chojin]

Added the Yahoo and Maxim links to the references on the discussion page. The Yahoo one in particular is great because it shoots down Wicke's claim that Roger is the popular one and not his website (it doesn't mention Roger at all in the article).

So, this guy wants unbiased people who aren't affiliated with the site to write about said site. Who makes a Wiki about something that they don't care about? Who has that much free time? Aside from Wicke?

I don't think I'm technically a staff member, so does that mean I can add a section on there about our love of cock?

[Protoclown]

I would say you could add as much cock as you want to it.

[Chojin]

If I write about Wicke's love of cock on my website and reference it in this article, does that make it Wikipedia law?

[Protoclown]

Why yes! That would, by their own logic, make them love cock! O-ho, how satisfying to defeat them like Captain Kirk would!

[Mockery]

don't knowif anybody found this already:
http://www.vh1.com/shows/dyn/totally_obsessed/82028/episode_about.jhtml
Ah, great find Kahl. If this isn't already on there, somebody please add it. And to take down I-Mockery and put up "Roger Barr" would be quite stupid.

[Esuohlim]

This whole thing has gotten absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe people have to explain to this Wickethewok guy why sources that mention the website are, godforbid, relevant.

[kahljorn]

yea soundtest added it for me I think :O

[Grislygus]

"Can't verify information in article" is listed directly under "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed". I said this, I asked for leeway, I pointed out that that it's difficult to reference things in this case, the Richmond article is verifiable... I don't get what we need to verify. This whole thing is very abstract.

[thebiggameover]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation

thats the dude behind wikipedia. and it says they only have 5 paid employes. :wtf

the vh1 thing has not been posted i think. and this wikthewok or whatever has it out for us for sure. wtf posting someones ip address?

[Emu]

Report it to one of the other admins and get him banned. :lol

[Esuohlim]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/WM2006_0060.jpg/220px-WM2006_0060.jpg

Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales

[mburbank]

It seems to me like being a Wikpedia Cop would be a great hobby for someone with OCD.

He doesn't seem to be able to think beyond how he sees the rules to what those rules are meant to do. OBVIOUSLY I-mock exitsts. OBVIOUSLY it's popular. Wikpedia's purpose it to provide info, encyclopedia like on things that exist.

He's completely abstract.

[ziggytrix]

So it the problem this pantywaist seems to be emphasizing is that some of the content of the article is not verifiable except by asking Roger Barr?

Any idiot can see that most of the content is about the site, as it is now, which is all verifiable by simply typing "i-mockery.com" into your browser.

What about this angle, is i-mockery registered as a company in any state? Do you pay taxes on revenue as "i-mockery, inc" (or whatever) or as Roger Barr?

Other than it's existence as a company, how is the site article any different than say, the Something Awful entry, or anything at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Comedy_websites or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_forums?

[kahljorn]

lol i looked at the wikipedia entry for itself when we started just to see and it's mostly self referances and shit.

[MLE]

but now, we obviously have found the references that were needed and he can go fuck off, right?

[kahljorn]

no because they aren't "independant" and "reliable" and they are about "Roger Barr" not "I-mockery". These guys are geniuoseses :(

[ziggytrix]

Seriously, go thru the comedy websites category and count the number of articles with references.

I only checked the A's, cuz I actually need to get some work done today, but so far my count is ZERO.

[kahljorn]

I'm willing to bet they'll give some response like, "Well that's a problem that needs to be addressed, in the future, they need to be marked for deletion so it can be discussed but for now this article is being considered for deletion and this article is what's important okay so we need to stay focused"

[MLE]

could someone with more article writing talent than me go in and add the new references to the actual article?

[Chojin]

We have the richmond article and the yahoo internet life article, the latter of which talks about i-mockery only. He still hasn't responded to that, so we'll see how it goes. My guess is that he'll start to get more abstract now and say that those articles don't have history on i-mockery to source, which is ridiculous because the only way someone could create a printed biography about the site is by interviewing the people responsible to begin with.

As someone already said, he's enforcing the rules as written (poorly) and not under what they're supposed to accomplish. If he's a good robot, he'll shut up now, but I think anyone with enough OCD to delete Wikipedia articles for free in their copious spare time has enough OCD to obsess over this entry's deletion. Most likely this shit won't stop until him and the other nazi wiki mods (Josh Lesnick's article was recently pulled for the same reasons they're trying to use on us) get reprimanded and some sense is restored. And that's not going to happen until someone talks to the higher-ups. Max's idea of a letter-writing campaign is actually a very good one, I think Rog should create a small page for it with contact information where people can send their handwritten letters and link to it in his blog. Not even for our article, as I honestly don't care about it, but to bring some credibility back to Wikipedia in general.

[Emu]

I still think someone should report him for posting Chojin's(?) IP address.

[Chojin]

By the way it's not just Josh Lesnick, but Wikipedia editors have been giving the webcomic community one fuck of a hard time in general lately because believe it or not printed publications don't often talk about other, free, online comics. FANCY THAT!

[Chojin]

Was just reading their policies and the main point of conflict here is W:NOR (No Original Research), which says that you can't put anything on Wikipedia without having it be said first in a reputable publication (although it also says that you can even write about yourself if this is the case, as long as you write in the 3rd person and keep an objective point of view). But what's really rich here is the reason NOR came about in the first place:
Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described the origin of the original research policy as follows: "The phrase 'original research' originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history." (Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 3, 2004) He has also said: "Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history." (Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 6, 2004)
So, Wikipedia's founder introduced this rule so it would be easier to turn down crackpot physicists. Curiously, it is not meant for powertripping teens to delete everything in the megaverse. Although you can see how they'd take it that way.

[mburbank]

I think you deserve a barn star for that research, Chojin.

[MLE]

alright, but that aside, it's been in multiple noteable publications and now would hold true to that rule. i don't see what the problem is.

[Esuohlim]

I still think someone should report him for posting Chojin's(?) IP address.

It was mine. Should I be worried? :(

[mburbank]

I don't think you should be worried, but you should report it, if you can find any way to do so. Publishing someones IP addy is supposed to be against all sorts of internet ettiquit.

[Emu]

For someone so anal I'd think he'd have at least put X's in for some of the numbers.

[AChimp]

You can't do anything about the IP address. It's displayed in the edit history for the page when someone without an account changes the page.

[mburbank]

BARN STAR!!

[Esuohlim]

I can't believe this guy thinks he's some head honcho because of his Mario Party award >:

[mburbank]

Dude.

Did you not see WikkiWakki has a BARN STAR!!!???

[Mockery]

I see somebody set up a "references" section on the Wiki entry. Thanks for doing that - though I don't see how more additions can be made to the references section. Can somebody please add this to it too and also post it in the "articles for deletion" section? I just uploaded this mp3 (not in a .zip file) so they can listen to it easily:

http://www.i-mockery.com/rog-radio.mp3

Interview about I-Mockery on West & Wylder 95.5 WTVY FM

That alone should be MORE than enough. They're clearly interested in the "web site" and not just "Roger Barr" and it covers a lot of the site's history later in the interview.

If that doesn't put an end to this stupid fiasco, nothing will.

Also, please add the Richmond.com article to the references section since that's clearly one that they want on there.

[Chojin]

Hey guys?

:barnstar

BARNSTAR.

[Protoclown]

Hahaha, nice!

By the way, I added the radio interview to the deletion discussion thread. I would have added it to the References section on the actual wiki page, but I couldn't figure out how to do it...

[Mockery]

By the way, I added the radio interview to the deletion discussion thread. I would have added it to the References section on the actual wiki page, but I couldn't figure out how to do it...
Thanks and yeah, I don't know how soundtest did that because if you try to go and edit it, none of the references he already put in show up and I wouldn't want anybody to overwrite the ones he already put in there. But we definitely gotta have the .mp3 interview and the richmond.com article in there.

[Protoclown]

Yeah, that was what happened to me too, I opened up the window to edit and there was nothing there. I don't know the magics of wikipedia :(

[Mockery]

Looks like all of your efforts to save the article and continuing to improve on it helped out after all. They're saying "The result of the discussion was no consensus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:I-Mockery

So it appears that the article has been saved for now. Thanks for helping find sources guys, and for defending the site against deletion by Mr. Power-trip.

Soundtest, when you get a chance, please be sure you add that mp3 interview to the sources section just as a precaution for future attacks on the article like that.

[Emu]

"No consensus?" I kind of got the idea it was overwhelmingly "strong keep."

[Esuohlim]

I guess there wasn't a consensus due to the apparent "sock puppetry". :rolleyes

[Emu]

What cunts seriously

[Chojin]

It's like how every game of little league ends in a tie!

:imock :ibapery

[Emu]

I think those barnstars are just handed out by other people at random. So i'm going to give all of you guys barnstars ok! :barnstar :barnstar :barnstar :barnstar :barnstar

[Chojin]

The decision was METED OUT by Luna Santin, the dude with the most feminine name on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Luna_Santin

BARNSTAR BRIGADE :< lol

[GADZOOKS]

Getting Barnstars on Wikipedia is equivilent to the acheivement of getting a Get Out Of Jail Free Card in a game of Monopoly.

[AChimp]

WE WIN!

This is a great victory for BAPE and should one day be chronicled in the Wikipedia entry.

[thebiggameover]

all the ref are up there along with the mp3. we win!!!!!

[mburbank]

Luna is a girl name. Period. Not a feminine boys name, like Bunny if you are from England. A girl name. His parents gave him a girl name. Or he chose it himself, thinking it very ew agey and somehow not realizing it was a GIRL NAME.

[mburbank]

OMG! I just thought of something! Someone who knows how to edit this Wiki crap needs to go into the I-mockery section and update it with a seriously polite description of our battle with and victory over Wikpedia! That would be hillarious!

[Chojin]

I was thinking about that, but something more along the lines of adding 'It is a matter of public record that Wickethewok regularly engages in beastiality, but curiously, pretends to hate every minute of it.' to a page here on i-mock.com, then referencing the blurb directly on the wiki.

[mburbank]

"Know pedophile Wikithewok"

"Serial weasel abuser Wikithewok"

"NAMBLA spokesprson Wikithewok"

[Protoclown]

Yes, but we should wait a while before doing anything like that...Prickthecock will probably still be tirelessly checking back on the page ready to start another Barnstar Crusade if he sees anything that doesn't adhere to Wikipedia's strict "not making fun of him" policy.

[otomo]

]we need a section in here to talk about the vets am i right i would like to hear more about the initiation to but not to much i dont want to give out the secret more jokes and stories to but not to much or nobody will go the site haha im joking we dont want more newbs]

---Insertformulahere#REDIRECT [[--Insert text

[Emu]

what

[MetalMilitia]

Yeah seriously

[Mockery]

Somebody entered that on the "discussion" page of the main I-Mockery wikipedia article. I think he was just copy-pasting it here for some... reason...

[Juttin]

I got it!
I will cause hundreds of vandalisms and/or loiterings,
leaving " I-MOCKERY.COM" spraypainted/stickered behind!

>:

[Chojin]

Actually, Josh Lesnick just made a good point about our battle with Wikipedia:
It looks like the results were "No consensus" which means "We'll put it up for deletion again a couple weeks later and this time we won't let anyone except a few editors know about it so that we can have our way once and for all."

Seriously, what the fuck. I-mockery!? Why don't they just delete Seanbaby and Something Awful while they're at it?

So, let's load the article up with references. When you make references in Wikipedia, you don't edit the References section, you add ref tags to other parts of the article, which then automatically adds the references to the references section references references.

[Emu]

I don't get why they're complaining about quality control on fucking i-mockery's article while they simultaneously allow the horrenodus pictures in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_positions

[kahljorn]

KAMA SUTRA TANTRIC SEX MAGIC OH YEA I LOVE BEING AMERICAN.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/kama/index.htm

Part I: Introductory
Chapter I. Preface
Chapter II. Observations on the Three Worldly Attainments of Virtue, Wealth, and Love
Chapter III. On the Study of the Sixty-Four Arts
Chapter IV. On the Arrangements of a House, and Household Furniture; and About the Daily Life of a Citizen, His Companions, Amusements, Etc.
Chapter V. About Classes of Women Fit and Unfit for Congress with the Citizen, and of Friends, and Messengers
Part II: On Sexual Union
Chapter I. Kinds of Union According to Dimensions, Force of Desire, and Time; and on the Different Kinds of Love
Chapter II. Of the Embrace
Chapter III. On Kissing
Chapter IV. On Pressing or Marking with the Nails
Chapter V. On Biting, and the Ways of Love to be Employed with Regard to Women of Different Countries
Chapter VI. On the Various Ways of Lying Down, and the Different Kinds of Congress
Chapter VII. On the Various Ways of Striking, and of The Sounds Appropriate to Them
Chapter VIII. About Females Acting the Part of Males
Chapter IX. On Holding the Lingam in the Mouth
Chapter X. How to Begin and How to End the Congress. Different Kinds of Congress, and Love Quarrels

it cracks me up that they use the word "Congress" so often:
Loving congress
Congress of subsequent love
Congress of artificial love
Congress of transferred love
Congress like that of eunuchs
Deceitful congress
Congress of spontaneous love

I'm glad we won the wikipedia dealio i was kind of wondering what happened with that :O

[Emu]

This is interesting. Apparently this rampant "delete articles I don't like" thing isn't new by any means: http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Goodbye:Parker_Peters

[Pub Lover]

Wikipedia is edited by some pretty uptight white guys with no lives, I've tried to join twice and they didn't like my name either time so I got banned. :lol

:fartin/drunk

[Fathom Zero]

This is interesting. Apparently this rampant "delete articles I don't like" thing isn't new by any means: http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Goodbye:Parker_Peters

Yeah, I found the Wikitruth a while ago and the topic is floating around on the Around the Internet page.

Conspiracy.

[MLE]

DON'T TELL GEGGY

[Jeanette X]

The site is run by beaurucratic fucks.

Don't worry about it.

:wah

Awww, Whats the matter sweetie? Did you get into an edit war? Did someone delete the article you made about yourself? Shush, its okay.

I need to visit General Blabber more often, I can't believe I missed a thread about Wikipedia.

[Jixby Phillips]

wtf jeanette is wikipedia your boyfriend or something

[Supafly345]

srsly you sympanthising?

[Emu]

I'm not sure what I'm looking at here.

Also SomethingAwful's mock Wikipedia talk page a few days ago was dead on.

Edit: WTF the thing I replied to is gone. :(