This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Best Page in the Universe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2004. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by 92.1.241.186 (talk · contribs) on 15 July 2009. It was contested by Sinneed (talk · contribs) on 2009-07-15 with the comment: Still takes hits, always been updated rarely. Notability won't evaporate even if he never updates it again. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I think it's pretty clear that when Maddox says "hits" he is referring to "unique visitors". His hit counters do not increase with refreshes, and he has implied this by using "page views" to express the other meaning. However, most people think "page views" when they see "hits", so it kind of devalues the comments on unique visitors by calling them "hits". I changed this before, but it was lost in passing, so I'm posting the reasoning here. Colin 18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
If Geocities site is genuinely notable in criticism of Maddox, that does rather suggest that Maddox is not, in fact, terribly important... Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Funny, the attack on Mothers against Maddox is very similar to the method used to discredit the 2004 Osama bin Laden video! The Legend of Miyamoto 01:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The petition MAM made happened to become one of the largest onlines petitions on petitiononline (it was in the top ten). I think that's pretty big. The reason the MAM site hasn't been updated is probably because they gave up after the petition went bad.
Previous versions of this article claimed that there was a major backlash against the travel industry as a result; I removed it, asked for sources, and nobody provided any. Over at the Maddox article, previous versions have claimed that Maddox was deceptive and "lost a large readership" as a result. The current version is just lame - a description of one his articles, which in itself is signifiacnt enough for inclusion here (if we include that, then we have to include every other article he's ever written). Any event mentioned here must have had some kind of outside effect, such as the DJ copying from his Diaz article. Hbdragon88 03:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. It reads more like propaganda for the cult of Maddox rather than an encyclopedia article. I've removed some of the junk on the page, but there is so much junk that the article would need a complete rewrite to even be useful to a reader. (Ex. What non-Maddox visitor cares how much he updates? The article attacks the Mothers against Maddox, treats the controversy like babble, and treats Maddox like a god, hence my use of the word "cult"). The Legend of Miyamoto 20:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears fixed and neutral now, and all remining info is verifialble, so the POV tag is gone. -- Chris chat edits essays 16:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
From what I know of it, the Charity has little to do with the site itself, and is more of a personal venture of Maddox's, even if the visitors of the Best Page in the Universe contributed to it. Also, the fued between the Something Awful and Maddox has very little to do with the Best Page in the Universe. It should be moved to Maddox's article. (69.241.228.117 23:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC))
Commujism is not the same than Best Page In The Universe, it shoulden't be a redirect. --200.89.6.215 23:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I changed the link of the hidden pages from The Best Fanpage In the Universe, to Maddox Addicts, which has a larger and more complete list, but someone edited it back. Why?DevinOfGreatness 18:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
While this is one of the funniest things on the web, I'm somewhat concerned about possible lack of notability and original research. Almost everything cited here is simply links to Maddox's descriptions. Does anyone know if this actually meets WP:WEB?19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)JoshuaZ
This article needs a clean up to remove unnotable citations, and to get other notable, verifiable and reputable ones added. All links to 'The Best Page in the Universe' should eventually be removed, since they do not qualify as being notable:
I'm starting out by putting 'primarysources' tag on it and removing part of the criticism section which contains weasle words and original research. --Dr. WTF 01:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Kill the lot of it. I wrote the majority of it at the time when I believed that it was never violated WP:NOR when citing soruces. Now I know that you can still make original conclusions with sources, which is what much of this article is. Also, per WP:SELFPUB, the site can be used as a self-published source, but the article cannot comprise of only those sources. hbdragon88 02:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to suggest changing "women acitivists" to "feminists". He specifically targets feminists, as opposed to ALL women activists(as feminists are the extremists of women's rights, and that is specifically what he bashes them for). 71.232.239.11 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Stephy
I think so, but erring on the side of caution let's discuss it. Plus I only have one addition to the collection. If you Google "My Balls Are Huge" or on Yahoo "I hate old people", it brings you to Maddox's site. That's not enough to start a whole section, IMO, but does anyone else have semi-useful facts about the site that would be categorized here? Mujarimojo 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I was watching a video of Maddox at a book signing, and one of his fans happened to bring up his feud with Something Awful. Maddox stated he had resolved his issues with Richard Kyanka, and later went on to imply that this specific article was wrong. [1] , look at 5:00 -- ShadowJester07 ►Talk 22:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Seriously. It's the most prominent property of his site these days, there should be a section detailing it. BTW, would taking some articles-per-unit-time averages be considered original research? S. Morrow 23:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the whole article could be considered up for deletion eventually because of lack of a serious lack of updates. Defunct anyone? Bactoid 09:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on an email I received from him on the subject of wheather he is letting the site die, or is just busy with projects, he said "maybe it's both self-inflicted and i'm working on other projects". Does that provide insight? --2dFx (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't think that there at that many "reliable sources" around for something like this. There are certain topics where they just do not exist.
This page is obviously written by Maddox himself and features nothing but bragging, written in third person. Not only that, it only shows Maddox's view on his controversies, like MaM. The site was formed, so Maddox spammed their petition and mirrored it on his site to spam it some more? Where are their receptions, comments, etc to what he did? He had a feud with Something Awful, all we have is a really sterilized Maddox-friendly version of that.
Wikipedia has been criticized for it's tangents on pages about websites, flash comics and internet celebrities, so why are they being so loose with adspace about this guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusher (talk • contribs) 09:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there some organization that monitors hits to web pages or something? That could be used as a third party reference, and if the MAM site is still up maybe it can be used as a reference of sorts. Eno-Etile 20:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I plan to give the article a serious round of hatchetization... flagged a lot of self-pub stuff. If the wp:RS don't care, neither does Wikipedia.- sinneed (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't this section be referred to in the past-tense? I'm pretty sure this group (in probability no more than one or two persons with a few sympathizers) is no longer around and hasn't been for 5 years now. The only 'independent' (non-mirror) evidence of their existence, a not-updated-since-January-2004 GeoCities page, will become irrelevant in October of this year when GeoCities closes. I don't see MAM as being really all that notable considering their sole claim to fame was a briefly 'popular' online petition against Maddox that lasted for about five months before people ignored it. Maybe include it in a controversies section or whatever, but having its own section seems a bit much. --Mrdie (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
A self-described concerned mother named Beth Robbins founded a website called Mothers Against Maddox[1] in late 2004. The website's slogan is "Help Us Fight and Finally Shut Down the Most Hateful Site on the Internet" and serves as a forum to organize shutting down the Xmission.com website with a petition-backed court order.[2] When Maddox wrote about it in the aforementioned Websense article, including a link to the original GeoCities.com website, Mothers Against Maddox was inundated with visitors and repeatedly exceeded its bandwidth limit. In response, Maddox hosted a mirror in order for fans of his writing to view it without disrupting the Mothers Against Maddox website's hosting arrangement.[3] Shortly after drafting the petition, Robbins decided to make a digitized copy available on the website PetitionOnline.com. Fans promptly flooded the petition, many posting vulgar comments to vindicate his emotive appeal to the youth demographic. Maddox said that he signed the petition, as "nobody gives a shit." The petition was eventually deactivated.[4][citation needed]
Maddox states that he received emails with similar viewpoints as expressed by Mothers Against Maddox. Such messages often contain sentences expressing a dislike for his viewpoints and/or that his site is a bad influence on their children. Maddox responded by saying that if his site offends people, they should not read it and "it's not my job to be your children's guardian."[citation needed]
On October 27, 2007 CNN ran a story about Mothers Against Drunk Driving asking another organization, Mothers Against Illegal Aliens, to cease using "Mothers Against" in the name of their organization. CNN went on to cite various other organizations that use "Mothers Against" in their name with Mothers Against Maddox being one of its examples.[5]
References
While amusing, I don't see a need, and am dubious of its value. Unless someone (like the adding editor) argues otherwise, I'll drop that image pretty soon.- Sinneed 22:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
A new section called controversy should be created to reflect at least the most recent an important controversy the website has with apple, and the fact he is banned from apple stores. For more reference you can see http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=apple_store_ban, but I think another external confrimation of this ban should also be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.31.1.98 (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Here's a picture of the website's main page: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/underwire/2013/04/the-best-page-in-the-universe-660x345.png Can we add it to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnindentifiedHuman (talk • contribs) 23:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Best Page in the Universe. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)