Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ultranet

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - brenneman {L} 02:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The_Ultranet[edit]

The Ultranet is up for deletion as an advert for a non-notable web forum, as well as probable vanity. 977 Google hits, most of which are actually for a product completely unrelated to this message board. See also this Afd. My advice is:

  • Delete Byrgenwulf 10:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN homebrew society. Self-promotion. Wikipedia is not a list of things made up at school Mensa meetings. -- GWO
  • Strong delete Spam, non-notable Dlyons493 Talk 12:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This is an interesting and notable group that seeks to bring together creative thinkers, not only those with high IQs. DrL 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: User:DrL made the initial version of this page, and appears to be a WP:SPA. With a few trivial exceptions, every one of this user's contributions are about related topics The Ultranet, Mega Foundation, Christopher Michael Langan, etc. -- Phr (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm an active Wikipedian and this is a legitimate entry. I am only making one vote here, so why all the fuss to contest it? DrL 18:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this page's content used to exist at Ultranet (High-IQ society). Per discussion on that article's Talk page, I merged the non-vanispamcruft content (what there was of it) to Christopher Michael Langan. Resurrecting that page with no discussion whatsoever is a bad violation of common practice. Delete. Anville 14:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did make comments regarding this page and the merge suggestions. My comments were ignored and the page was merged. So much for common practice. DrL 15:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's ridiculous. Of the articles you think should be deleted, half don't exist on this encyclopaedia (they're red links). The Giga Society is also being AfD'ed at the moment, and I see no reason why the others should stay, either. I'm sure they will be removed eventually. Byrgenwulf 19:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are reaching back from a future state in which Wikipedia is cleansed of all high IQ references (or maybe I didn't realize WP was case-sensitive). I just noticed that Giga does have an AfD and I do see the same old clique ... DrL 20:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the humour, DrL: when I read that comment of yours, as you know, those were red links which I see you have fixed now. Please read my comments on the other AfD for an explanation...I'm not offended by IQ (I loathe political correctness), and as I have repeatedly said, an article on "high IQ subculture" could be worthwhile...but every little club or society does not need an encyclopaedia article. Byrgenwulf 07:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I would have hoped people associated with a high-IQ society would be smart enough to realise that it's not good to make misleading claims like "The Ultranet has been frequently discussed in the popular media, including the BBC", when the only evidence given to support this claim of notability is a single link to a BBC interview in which the forum is mentioned precisely once, as a passing reference. That is so far from "discussion" as to make the claim border on plain dishonesty. — Haeleth Talk 21:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is an interview by Damien Fowler of the BBC. It features three members of the Ultranet, including two directors of the Mega Foundation, discussing the Foundation and its first major project, The Ultranet. That much is clear to anyone that reads it. DrL 21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is impossible for me to comprehend how mature and highly intelligent men can involve themselves in such detrimental "boy/fights" of this sort; specially, when they are "supposed" to be HiQ'ers. This personal barrage leaves no one untouched of scorn. It is absurd to delete anyones serious work on these undignified grounds.You must bear in mind that: a theory is just a theory, a theory it is. Joely R. Villalba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.234.90.44 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge this and all similar Langan-related high-IQ-society articles into a list in Langan's biographical article. Phr (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Тhis has gone beyond being serious. It's become a joke. Wiki as a concept sucumbs to its own openess due to the will of a handful of people who make judgments on whether articles are qualified for entry into an encyclopaedia, yet none of the handful involved has any qualifications to do so whatsover, other than being here long enough. That makes Wiki an utterly silly thing. There are thousands after thousands of entries of anonimous people, but the handful of puberty (or God knows what other problems) striken guys is after the IQ related ones most likely in order to prove to themselves that "these horrible, undiscovered creatures of misterious aptitude can be overcomed afterall". Well, you know what, Wiki is not all that important as you would like it to be. Stevan Damjanovic
  • Comment And you know, the joke is on Wikipedia and the admins. As you can see from Byrgenwulf's contribution history, his very first edit to Wikipedia was on July 2, 2006. He made a few innocuous edits (and waited a week, patient boy) before beginning his onslaught against the CTMU article (and everything else related to Chris Langan). In light of this and the other specific deceptive tactics outlined by Tim Smith on the AfD review page, this user should be permanently banned. DrL 14:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have become a massive campaign now to thoroughly discredit me: if any passing admins could do something about it, I would be grateful. "Singlemindedness", DrL? Compare your editing history and mine...see how many different articles I have worked on, look at the article I am busy with in my sandbox etc. Drl, on the other hand has only edited articles to do with Langan, as has been pointed out by many over the past few days (not that that isn't her right, of course). And as for "deceptiveness"...Tim Smith never said I was being deceptive, he actually expressed willingness to work with me because I seemed the most co-operative among the editors who wished the CTMU to go. I think "deceptive", DrL, might however be used to describe linking to an out of date editing history, as you have done above. I am not making mayhem, but trying to make Wikipedia a legitimately better encyclopaedia, not by filling it with vanispamcruftisement, but by cleaning up articles that need help, writing new ones on neglected topics, and so on. And I actually apologised to DrL (see her talk page) for if what I have done has caused upset, because I strongly believe DrL is personally involved in many of these articles (I could be wrong, but an apology is not out of place, even then). Please stop this nonsense now, DrL. Byrgenwulf 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Byrgenwulf, you have been outed for exactly what you are, an anti-Langan critic using Wikipedia to carry out a personal vendetta and making a mockery of the project in the process. Anyone can examine your contribution history and read about your underhanded tactics on the AfD review page. They can also read your comments to others ...
Bergenwulf to Tox on this page: "The CTMU and its proponents have blown their chances with me now, after Asmodeus' slanderous comments and lies about me."
Asmodeus wrote nothing "slanderous" [sic] about you except to point out your many mistakes that gave you away as a philosophical neophyte. You have discredited only yourself. DrL 15:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is impossible for me to comprehend how mature and highly intelligent men can involve themselves in such detrimental "boy/fights" of this sort; specially, when they are "supposed" to be HiQ'ers. This personal barrage leaves no one untouched of scorn. It is absurd to delete anyones serious work on these undignified grounds.You must bear in mind that: a theory is just a theory, a theory it is. Joely R. Villalba" KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.234.84.176 (talk • contribs)
  • Thank you for stopping by; please discuss here rather than the article page. DrL 15:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that this comment by an anon using IP address 4.234.84.176 was moved here from Talk:Mega Foundation by DrL (talk · contribs), who has done this several times (see her contribs). I think this was inappropriate since it amounts to taking someone's comment out of context. ---CH 23:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newbie's first day - Welcome to Wikipedia! DrL 17:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If DrL is implying that Massmato is a sock created only to vote in this AfD, in fact it appears that this user voted in a number of AfD's that day.---CH 23:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mega Foundation, then copyedit mercilessly. I don't care which is the target article, but they appear more or less notable, given some press coverage. Luna Santin 17:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a reasonable suggestion as there is a lot of overlap. I would suggest Mega Foundation as the main article and The Ultranet as a redirect to Mega Foundation. DrL 19:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society
---CH 22:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User CH/Hillman evidently fails to understand what a "shill" is. Strangely, the definition is right there on the Wikipedia page to which he links. Here's how "shill" is defined on that page: "A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services who pretends no association to the seller and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer."
The author of this article is not selling goods or services; the Ultranet is a project of the Mega Foundation, a nonprofit (charitable purpose) entity obliged to spend everything it takes in on its own maintenance. Nor is the author playing the role of seller or customer. Thus, the "shilling" allegation is just an abuse of the deletion process.
The Wikipedia page continues: "In some cases, the members of an organization or the employees of a company may monitor and/or participate in public discussions and groups. Such people are not shills, since they don't attempt to mislead others." Anyone accusing anyone else of "shilling" would therefore need to present evidence that misleading information has been included in the article. If that were going to happen, it would already have happened.
Wikipedia's anti-shilling guidelines are intended to prevent hucksters from using Wikipedia to fatten their bank accounts and enhance their personal prospects and the value of their personal interests. But that clearly isn't the case here. So please desist with the abusive and unsubstantiated allegations. Asmodeus 19:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Asmodeus, if you had read further in that article, you would find here the following sentence: "In online discussion media, such as message boards, discussion forums, and newsgroups, shills may pose as independent experts, satisfied consumers, or “innocent” parties with specific opinions in order to further the interests of an organization in which they have an interest, such as a commercial vendor or special-interest group." Now, whatever the articles of incorporation of the Mega foundation might be, and even taking into account that Wikipedia is not a message board or a "blog" (despite how some people choose to use it), the MF surely counts as a "special interest group". Therefore, someone who is affiliated to that group, particularly in an official capacity, and acts in a forum such as Wikipedia in manner promoting the interests of that group (like demanding that it have an article about it when it hardly merits it), without declaring their interests, is shilling. By definition. Moreover, DrL was caught posting links in the "Chicken or the Egg" article, posting links to the Mega Foundation website which ask for money to view (proof: here is her edit; this is the link she posted). Now, I'm not sure where that money goes to, whether it is the Mega Foundation's coffers or Langan's own pocket, and nor do I care. But I do think that this action constitutes a gross abuse of Wikipedia for monetary gain. And, once again, shilling, as well as "link spam", Vanispamcruftisement and countless other offences. Byrgenwulf 20:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh, please. I'd linked to that page because it had a table of contents which showed that the cited article was indeed included. DrL 20:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, if the link I posted above suddenly goes dead or changes in nature (like by not soliciting money anymore), we'll all know what's happened...but that's fine, because I have captured a copy of it. But, why not just link straight to the table of contents, then? Byrgenwulf 20:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That would have been my preference, but the TOC was a pdf page that did not identify the book. So I linked to the page that talked about the book, and also linked to the TOC. True, there was a link to purchase the book. But I couldn't find a better link and wanted to add a citation. WP:AGF, please. DrL 20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a feeble explanation, I think. The link in question wasn't just some obscure little button on the corner of the page, the sole purpose of that page is to sell copies of Langan's book: right in the middle is a big $10 price tag, with Paypal information, etc. etc. Right at the bottom is a tiny little link to the ToC, which is clearly an ancillary purpose of that page. And I find it very difficult to assume good faith, DrL, in light of the amount of "good faith" you have assumed about me and my intentions. Nonetheless, I merely have merely stated facts: other users may interpret them however they wish. Byrgenwulf 20:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Participants in this AfD should be aware that its initiator is engaging in vendetta. User Byrgenwulf registered at Wikipedia on July 2, 2006, three weeks ago, and launched an all-out editing/AfD attack on Christopher Langan, his notable and widely-publicized theory the CTMU (which Byrgenwulf irrationally disputes, but was quickly shown not to comprehend), the Mega Foundation, the Ultranet, and so on ad nauseam. Byrgenwulf even hurled himself into an AfD against an IQ society to which Langan once belonged, within minutes of its inception through the offices of a prior confederate. To illicitly gain support for his personal blitzkrieg against the CTMU, Byrgenwulf transparently misled and recruited people sympathetic to his viewpoint from areas of the Wikipedia web complex not directly related to the topic of that article, tarring it in the process. This is called "abuse of the deletion process", and it violates Wikipedia policy.
User Byrgenwulf is in the deceptive habit of demanding verification for everything he disputes - that is, everything he can dispute - until he manages to identify a verificative link which he can paint as violating some aspect of Wikipedia policy (all nonprofit entities solicit donations; they need to do so in order to survive, and nobody is allowed to personally profit from this). This gives him a pretext for expanding his attack, preferably with accompaniment by an unwitting chorus which he has actively misled and recruited from inappropriate sectors of the Wikipedia community. Regarding Byrgenwulf's spurious "shilling" allegations, people who post articles on Wikipedia are virtually all interested in the topics of those articles, and therefore belong to "special interest groups" associated with those topics. Ordinarily, they do not post a detailed confession regarding the exact nature of their interest; it is sufficient that they maintain neutrality, verify their edits, and maintain relevance to the topic at hand. User Byrgenwulf is simply attempting, once again, to twist and misrepresent standard practice at Wikipedia in order to gain a dishonest advantage over his victims.
This is all now a matter of record. With all due respect, I ask that Byrgenwulf at least try to tell the truth (if that is possible). Asmodeus 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone concerned by the frantic bluster above is invited to look at the Mega Foundation AfD for my comments. Byrgenwulf 22:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This is very important to know, and yes, as Byrgenwulf himself says, it is very easy to see for oneself that what Asmodeus is saying is true. Just follow a bit of Byrgenwulf's history. Where one is coming from tells us enough about where it leads to follow him. StevanMD 00:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Ultranet&oldid=1144698661"