Talk:TOTSE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Totse.info[edit]

Seems to be the official successor site to come up. It's administrated by former members of TOTSE and has been given the blessing of being the true follower to TOTSE.com. Where does the community stand on adding it to the article? 173.18.156.229 (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)St3ve

Long time Totse member here. This site is a legit replacement. -ILTST9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.47.62 (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I agree. Just came to this wiki page to reminisce, and saw that no successors were listed. Zoklet was never even close to what Totse was. There was absolutely no spirit of community like at Totse, and the administration of that site was abhorrently totalitarian. Totse.info is much better, and this is coming from a veteran Totsean. 24.1.230.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC).

This is all true, long-time totse member here. Totse.info is the successor website, everybody is leaving Zoklet in flocks to come join. Same layout as totse, same textfiles, same userbase. This is for real...and it's wonderful. 13579/Cain signing off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.141.95 (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this, Totse.info is the successor. I am long time mod of Zoklet.net and the community has finally decided that Totse.info is the successor to Totse.com. Dfg_Remnants_Unleashed (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Vet of TOTSE here, this is the real deal, or as close as it gets. People are leaving Zoklet, the trends are picking up for this, and the users are active again (including many who left any and all successor sites). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyclaw441 (talkcontribs) 19:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. I'm a totse veteran, and totse.info/bbs is the new totse. Zoklet was only mentioned as the successor because Zok was a totse admin. Zoklet was his forum, not a totse successor. People joined it because there were no other alternatives presented. Numerous problems on that site including infringement of free speech means that it is not and never was totse's successor. As it stands, totse.info is totse now. Fanglekai (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Fanglekai

900 people could agree it doesn't matter. Wikipedia is about verification not truth (no really, go check), if reliable sources don't exist to back this claim, then it's not suitable for the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Cameron Scott, what more verification do you need? As a totse veteran, I'm an expert on the matter, and thus my word is verification. We have quite a few veterans who are in agreement on this issue. Totse members are speaking up in agreement that totse.info is totse.com's successor. This is verifiable. The only verification you're going to get is from members of the old community. There is no internet authority that verifies anything. If the veterans of totse.com believe that totse.info is its successor, then it is, and that's verifiable by listening to them. Fanglekai (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Then there is no verification, wikipedia relies on information published in what we consider reliable sources such as academic journals, mainstream newspapers etc. Your word (as is mine, as is anyone else's) is worthless in terms of what wikipedia needs for verification, so it can't go in. That's not to say I don't believe what people are saying to me but that wikipedia does not and will not accept personal testimony as a reliable source. Information can't go in on that basis. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I must confirm what Cameron Scott writes here. This is fundamental Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. __meco (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

HTS-Noob here, I moderate on totse.info and was an extraordinarily active member of the totse.com community. Many of the members dispersed to various sites - this much is verifiable. The combination of having an active community of dedicated totseans, as well as having the old layout and textfiles has lead to totse.info quickly becoming one of the most popular of these sites - this is also verifiable. totse.info has effectively taken up the totse mantle, and this is an undeniable fact. By all appearances, the sites (totse.com and totse.info that is) are identical.

The other sites members dispersed to have become their own entities entirely, and could hardly be seen as a continuation of the totse legacy at this point. By these merits I think it's hard to argue that totse.info be denied the slightest mention on the totse wiki article. After all, we are totse. HTS-Noob (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the users above. Zoklet, while a small substitute, is not a legitimate replacement site. The same goes for Totse2. Both of these sites are cluttered with disinformation and uninformed users. However it appears that the totse.info site has retained roughly 99% of the information originally posted on totse.com, considering it is a pure save-state image of the site only weeks before it went down. Yet another totse vet. (tetrishydracanofbeanoil) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.69.36 (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Totse.info is where most of the members have moved to, yes. It deserves at least a mention, along with some of these dead links deleted...I'm going to try to clean this up a bit, most of the links at the end of the article no longer work. KerberosGX (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

once again, no reliable source, no mention - this is core policy and cannot be ignored. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw this over at your forum:

We've been trying to get Wikipedia to link to us for a while now. They always delete the link. There's another thread here somewhere asking a load of us to post in the TOTSE talk section on Wikipedia that Totse.info is a legitimate replacement.

Seriously, this *does not work*, 100s of you can post, it doesn't change that the article has to conform to our core policies and that means that it must be based on reliable sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


I also saw this on your board He actually stated that Wikipedia isn't interested in the truth? What a cornhole., this isn't something I've dreamed up off the top of my head. it's part of our core thinking, go over to WP:V and see for yourself, the first line states that

'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.' --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Then what in God's name is a reliable source? Are not tens of moderators and forum staff not enough (me being one of them)? What do you want, a signed piece of parchment from the Queen? The way you make it sound, you would accept a complete lie so long as it had a "verifiable citation" in a "reliable source". Just what do you want here? --skyclaw441 (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Then what in God's name is a reliable source?

Magazine articles, articles on website with strong evidence of editoral control and fact-checking, peer reviewed journals, certain television sources, you can get a full list at: WP:RS.

  • Are not tens of moderators and forum staff not enough (me being one of them)?

Sorry no, bear in mind I'm not making this up off the top of my head, I'm simply the messenger explaining how it is here. You might not like that, and I can understand why that is, but that's the way the wikipedia community sees it.

  • The way you make it sound, you would accept a complete lie so long as it had a "verifiable citation" in a "reliable source".

- that has actually happened but we tend to use the weight and number of reliable sources to work out that issue as it arises. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  • So, providing that we display proof of the reliable sources which have been mentioned above, we can have our link on the Wikipedia page?88.109.23.232 (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Anonymous &T Member

Yes, if there are reliable sources that make the connection between the two sites. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I say we include the link. Totse.info seems to be a near carbon-copy replacement of the old site. 71.186.163.205 (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We can't sub guesswork for reliable sources, so sorry, no. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
What reliable sources are there? There is none. You have one primary source, and that is totse. There is no encyclopedia brittanica or worldbook articles on totse, but there aren't any on encyclopedia dramatica or 4chan either. Yet those articles exist on this website. 71.186.163.205 (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
There are multiple reliable sources on both of these subjects so I'm a bit confused by your example? --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Totse.info is in no way a successor to Totse.com. It's run by none of the same people, with a tiny fraction of the userbase and none of the community or spirit that made Totse so great. Basically most people either stayed at Zoklet.net or stopped posting altogether, and a few butthurt people that didn't like the admins of Zoklet went over to .info and started up their little clone site. Ask pretty much anyone except Dfg and his lackeys, and they will vehemently disagree with you if you suggest .info is the true successor to Totse. Totse is dead, and it's time to move on, except these guys can't seem to stop humping the corpse. 94.193.222.232 (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The only verifiable proof community succession was the totse TTFN page where Jeff explicitly listed Zoklet as the "rendezvous". We have screen caps and the wayback machine to prove it too. --76.78.115.220 (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Suck it DFG: http://web.archive.org/web/20090221113038/http://www.totse.com/ --76.78.115.220 (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Internet archive.[edit]

Various versions of the original site are stored at the internet archive. Would it not make sense to link to that in the meantime while the debate about the official successor carries on? At least people would see the old site as it was rather than clicking and finding a broken link. It's not as if they have been interfered with or edited- unless you know something about the internet archive that I don't, which may well be possible- they are the original pages only archived on different servers. IrishPete 02:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the links to TOTSE with the appropriate Wayback Machine links, although neither Wayback Machine nor Coral CDN have Replacement for UBB announcement archived. This may constitute sufficient reason to remove that reference.--Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 21:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

real name[edit]

"Jeff Hunter (real name unknown)" Dang, I used to know his real name. I think it was Earl something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.109.16 (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Earl C. Ruby III, I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.123.196 (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Goodbye Message[edit]

If one has the text of the goodbye message that was posted on TOTSE's front page before closure, should it be included in the article? I'm worried about verifiability -- the original source obviously doesn't exist anymore, and the only verification I can see of such a thing would be the word of other people who have their own copies of the message. This seems to present the same problem as did the fiasco above re totse.info.

I wanted to run this by experienced editors before wasting anyone's time.

Thanks.

97.77.50.61 (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

An archive of the goodbye message is available on the Wayback Machine: [1]. I just inserted the link into the article.--Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 21:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Tor successor?[edit]

There exists a Tor Hidden Service site, "TorTSE - A continuation of the infamous TOTSE forum which has existed since the late 80s covering almost every topic." Can this be verifiably linked to TOTSE? Or debunked even? __meco (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)