![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 June 12. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the past couple days there have been a few insertions of the "Controversy" paragraph which discusses a single member at the site (BBR) and the issues involved between them. I feel this has no WP encyclopedic merit and have reverted the entry twice.
User:Splash suggested I write in here about it. It also seems that other editors have too reverted the same entry. I have a moment ago left a message to:
User_talk:163.17.124.254. Other anon IPs that have entered the same information which was reverted are:
Special:Contributions&target=69.169.144.239 and
Special:Contributions&target=24.195.20.252
User_talk:69.169.144.239 and
User_talk:24.195.20.252. I'd like to start up a discussion on these changes. --
Paul Laudanski 13:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Rhobite isn't a member at BBR that I know of, so how he could say "few users care or even remember him" is not accurate. I am using a different name at BBR and people still IM me on it. The "vandalism" stopped, and I've been good here. BBR has a page here, so it's part of the history, since I was NOT the only member who left over that dispute. There were a lot. Paul (z-x) remembers me and I remember him. He can vouch for me that I didn't cause much trouble before the incidents started with BBR. I had almost 14,000 posts at BBR, which is TONS for any online community. I was well known. In addition, I had the most "points" in their point system at one time. I'm not trying to advertise my own site, I have other ways of doing that. I'm just trying to make sure the facts are straight on the history of BBR. I can type in "Germany" into here at wikipedia, and it'll mention the dark days that happened in the 30's and 40's.
You became a member the same year I stopped posting and being active. It would have taken you awhile to be familar with any names there. I didn't kill my account until a few months after then. I only came back after another name when I realized the things they were doing to me and the things I was doing to them are stupid. They still said they didn't want me back. Eventually they said I could join, but I could neither have my old account back, nor could I use Hockeyfun1 as a username and I was not allowed to mention "Hockeyfun1". The incident that I left over, probably 15 other members left too. I don't see why I can't mention it. I didn't put my main website in the Controversy section either. With your logic, then take out the secret forums if no one cares about them outside of BBR.
Yes I know you, as I was a host at BBR for 3 or 4 years. I've seen many issues crop up over the years at BBR, but no offense, the issues you have with BBR are not IMVHO WP worthy. First off, if there are any issues like that, I've always felt it best to keep it non-public. If you seriously have an issue with BBR, then the BBB is the right place to complain, not here. -- Paul Laudanski 02:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Justin disappointed me by doing nothing about it. It seemed pretty serious, since about 15 or so people left because of one incident. Plus I don't know why they won't even let me use Hockeyfun1 as a username now. What would the BBB do about it?
BBR has long been know for punishing members who use the word 'meatlocker' if they are not one of the chosen ones to view the sekret porn forum. Do a site search for the word 'meatlocker' and see how many hits you get but cant read the posts.
Small revert war in progress. A thread was posted in the Stars Pub, a secret forum on DSLR and the wiki page was mentioned. Someone (a mod?) on Optimum Online came and edited the page and removed the references to the secret forums. It has been reverted. Keep an eye out. --K, 8/27/05
I have asked for assistance from the AMA on this revert war. Clearly the article is being reverted more than three times in a 24 hour period. Since I am involved in the rv edits, I cannot ask for a temporary article protection to enforce a cool off period. Perhaps someone who isn't involved in the edits can ask for that protection? Just before this talk page entry, I see another rv has been done yet again removing information. -- Paul Laudanski 17:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I have re-entered the proposed forum names/links a moment ago as reached by consensus above. In addition, I have entered a RfC for Other on whether or not an addition made on July 14th ought to be retained as encyclopedic worthy or removed as advertisement/spam under the Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance#Broadbandreports section . Of reference, Slashdot has multiple pages about its website and culture, including trolling pages such as Slashdot_subculture, Slashdot_trolling_phenomena, and Trolltalk where discussion of the hidden SID is found. So the question remains, are the links added on July 14th by 24.58.89.146 considered WP worthy by the greater community at WP?
I am torn on this particular one. On the one side, it shows members what lies in the waiting given time and post counts or fee payment. But on the flip side, is it WP worthy? If its not WP worthy, what kind of information should the article then contain? It was voted for deletion and kept, I'm assuming to be expanded upon. One thing is certain, the whole anon IP hit & run edits is immature. Even right now an anon IP reverted what was reached by consensus. TIA -- Paul Laudanski 13:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, this page has been on my watchlist for a while and, with an RfC now posted, I'll dive in:
The controversy behind this article is unreal... folks keep adding links, removing links, and we already agreed to what is supposed to be in the article above. There appears to be no sanity to this article. -- Paul Laudanski 17:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Why not just get rid of the article? How is it Wiki worth having the Stars Watercooler mentioned? - Hockeyfun1
Just mentioning the word 'meatlocker' in a thread will result in the message getting deleted. If you ask WHY the moderator will inform you it's in the site FAQ... If you persist in using the word or for clarification of why the word is not allowed on the site, it may result in your future messages being put into a message queue. Whereupon they are reviewed by a moderator who then decides if the message is ok to be post... If moderator really dislikes you, it can result in a site ban... I know, as this is what happened to me... Just google Kenmo Meatlocker and DSLREPORTS...
Information regarding moderation practices by Lovefishing and modified by Mouseanon have been removed. The first instance was by Obliter claiming "Removed non-verifiable opinions". So what would it take to "verify" the so-called opinions? I have personally witnessed such behavior on the site, which is why I put the info back up that Obliter removed. Would that qualify as verification? Shortbus28
Ok then. How is this for verification? It is from the DSLR site itself as of Saturday, July 4th, 12:42pm Mountain Time
http://www.dslreports.com/faq/648
No user of the site has any right to post anything they feel like posting. If a user posts, they have to live with any editing or deletion or other moderator action without public complaint. Private complaints can be addressed via the contacts page.
and
Any poster may be banned at any time by name, IP address or other identification without any prior warning and without any explanation given.
http://www.dslreports.com/faq/site/1.5_TOS_-_Terms_of_Service
terms of use (plain english key points)
......We also reserve the right to edit or remove any information you upload, edit or remove your user account, for any reason whatsoever, and with no prior notice.
Using these rules, posts of moderation are deleted as public complaint and also used in regard to members complaining about the site on other forums or media as a "TOS" violation. The last one is a catch-all for anything they don't like.
Therefore, I fully believe the statements to be accurate and should be reinstated. Shortbus28 —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC).
The founder and history information appears to be inaccurate. The History of DSL Reports says that:
That in turn links to an interview with Justin Beech at www.dotjournal.com which says:
The Slashdot story appears to be Getting DSL, with a time consistent with the history and story. This is also consistent with the archive.org about page, which states in part "not until I get my mail folder sorted out", also suggesting a singular founder.
Looks as though the history needs to be corrected to say that it was created by Justin Beech. Who, it seems, edited the article to have it say exactly that. 82.33.8.37 20:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I think something should be said about the redirection of broadbandreports.com to dslreports.com, I don't know if the official name is broadbandreports or dslreports though http://www.dslreports.com/faq/13466
Can someone move this page to DSLReports... that is the branding they are sticking with now (see the site for the new logo).
Thanks! Myriad Pro ( talk) 21:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on DSLReports. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 June 12. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the past couple days there have been a few insertions of the "Controversy" paragraph which discusses a single member at the site (BBR) and the issues involved between them. I feel this has no WP encyclopedic merit and have reverted the entry twice.
User:Splash suggested I write in here about it. It also seems that other editors have too reverted the same entry. I have a moment ago left a message to:
User_talk:163.17.124.254. Other anon IPs that have entered the same information which was reverted are:
Special:Contributions&target=69.169.144.239 and
Special:Contributions&target=24.195.20.252
User_talk:69.169.144.239 and
User_talk:24.195.20.252. I'd like to start up a discussion on these changes. --
Paul Laudanski 13:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Rhobite isn't a member at BBR that I know of, so how he could say "few users care or even remember him" is not accurate. I am using a different name at BBR and people still IM me on it. The "vandalism" stopped, and I've been good here. BBR has a page here, so it's part of the history, since I was NOT the only member who left over that dispute. There were a lot. Paul (z-x) remembers me and I remember him. He can vouch for me that I didn't cause much trouble before the incidents started with BBR. I had almost 14,000 posts at BBR, which is TONS for any online community. I was well known. In addition, I had the most "points" in their point system at one time. I'm not trying to advertise my own site, I have other ways of doing that. I'm just trying to make sure the facts are straight on the history of BBR. I can type in "Germany" into here at wikipedia, and it'll mention the dark days that happened in the 30's and 40's.
You became a member the same year I stopped posting and being active. It would have taken you awhile to be familar with any names there. I didn't kill my account until a few months after then. I only came back after another name when I realized the things they were doing to me and the things I was doing to them are stupid. They still said they didn't want me back. Eventually they said I could join, but I could neither have my old account back, nor could I use Hockeyfun1 as a username and I was not allowed to mention "Hockeyfun1". The incident that I left over, probably 15 other members left too. I don't see why I can't mention it. I didn't put my main website in the Controversy section either. With your logic, then take out the secret forums if no one cares about them outside of BBR.
Yes I know you, as I was a host at BBR for 3 or 4 years. I've seen many issues crop up over the years at BBR, but no offense, the issues you have with BBR are not IMVHO WP worthy. First off, if there are any issues like that, I've always felt it best to keep it non-public. If you seriously have an issue with BBR, then the BBB is the right place to complain, not here. -- Paul Laudanski 02:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Justin disappointed me by doing nothing about it. It seemed pretty serious, since about 15 or so people left because of one incident. Plus I don't know why they won't even let me use Hockeyfun1 as a username now. What would the BBB do about it?
BBR has long been know for punishing members who use the word 'meatlocker' if they are not one of the chosen ones to view the sekret porn forum. Do a site search for the word 'meatlocker' and see how many hits you get but cant read the posts.
Small revert war in progress. A thread was posted in the Stars Pub, a secret forum on DSLR and the wiki page was mentioned. Someone (a mod?) on Optimum Online came and edited the page and removed the references to the secret forums. It has been reverted. Keep an eye out. --K, 8/27/05
I have asked for assistance from the AMA on this revert war. Clearly the article is being reverted more than three times in a 24 hour period. Since I am involved in the rv edits, I cannot ask for a temporary article protection to enforce a cool off period. Perhaps someone who isn't involved in the edits can ask for that protection? Just before this talk page entry, I see another rv has been done yet again removing information. -- Paul Laudanski 17:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I have re-entered the proposed forum names/links a moment ago as reached by consensus above. In addition, I have entered a RfC for Other on whether or not an addition made on July 14th ought to be retained as encyclopedic worthy or removed as advertisement/spam under the Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance#Broadbandreports section . Of reference, Slashdot has multiple pages about its website and culture, including trolling pages such as Slashdot_subculture, Slashdot_trolling_phenomena, and Trolltalk where discussion of the hidden SID is found. So the question remains, are the links added on July 14th by 24.58.89.146 considered WP worthy by the greater community at WP?
I am torn on this particular one. On the one side, it shows members what lies in the waiting given time and post counts or fee payment. But on the flip side, is it WP worthy? If its not WP worthy, what kind of information should the article then contain? It was voted for deletion and kept, I'm assuming to be expanded upon. One thing is certain, the whole anon IP hit & run edits is immature. Even right now an anon IP reverted what was reached by consensus. TIA -- Paul Laudanski 13:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, this page has been on my watchlist for a while and, with an RfC now posted, I'll dive in:
The controversy behind this article is unreal... folks keep adding links, removing links, and we already agreed to what is supposed to be in the article above. There appears to be no sanity to this article. -- Paul Laudanski 17:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Why not just get rid of the article? How is it Wiki worth having the Stars Watercooler mentioned? - Hockeyfun1
Just mentioning the word 'meatlocker' in a thread will result in the message getting deleted. If you ask WHY the moderator will inform you it's in the site FAQ... If you persist in using the word or for clarification of why the word is not allowed on the site, it may result in your future messages being put into a message queue. Whereupon they are reviewed by a moderator who then decides if the message is ok to be post... If moderator really dislikes you, it can result in a site ban... I know, as this is what happened to me... Just google Kenmo Meatlocker and DSLREPORTS...
Information regarding moderation practices by Lovefishing and modified by Mouseanon have been removed. The first instance was by Obliter claiming "Removed non-verifiable opinions". So what would it take to "verify" the so-called opinions? I have personally witnessed such behavior on the site, which is why I put the info back up that Obliter removed. Would that qualify as verification? Shortbus28
Ok then. How is this for verification? It is from the DSLR site itself as of Saturday, July 4th, 12:42pm Mountain Time
http://www.dslreports.com/faq/648
No user of the site has any right to post anything they feel like posting. If a user posts, they have to live with any editing or deletion or other moderator action without public complaint. Private complaints can be addressed via the contacts page.
and
Any poster may be banned at any time by name, IP address or other identification without any prior warning and without any explanation given.
http://www.dslreports.com/faq/site/1.5_TOS_-_Terms_of_Service
terms of use (plain english key points)
......We also reserve the right to edit or remove any information you upload, edit or remove your user account, for any reason whatsoever, and with no prior notice.
Using these rules, posts of moderation are deleted as public complaint and also used in regard to members complaining about the site on other forums or media as a "TOS" violation. The last one is a catch-all for anything they don't like.
Therefore, I fully believe the statements to be accurate and should be reinstated. Shortbus28 —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC).
The founder and history information appears to be inaccurate. The History of DSL Reports says that:
That in turn links to an interview with Justin Beech at www.dotjournal.com which says:
The Slashdot story appears to be Getting DSL, with a time consistent with the history and story. This is also consistent with the archive.org about page, which states in part "not until I get my mail folder sorted out", also suggesting a singular founder.
Looks as though the history needs to be corrected to say that it was created by Justin Beech. Who, it seems, edited the article to have it say exactly that. 82.33.8.37 20:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I think something should be said about the redirection of broadbandreports.com to dslreports.com, I don't know if the official name is broadbandreports or dslreports though http://www.dslreports.com/faq/13466
Can someone move this page to DSLReports... that is the branding they are sticking with now (see the site for the new logo).
Thanks! Myriad Pro ( talk) 21:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on DSLReports. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)