Talk:Aspies For Freedom
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 9 June 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.|
|This page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.|
Is anyone aware of the reason why AFF is suffering problems?
It appears to be down more then its up. Anyone care to comment? Emails to the admin have gone unanswered.
Aspies For Freedom's other resources
"The website of Aspies For Freedom contains other resources for autistic people more oriented towards personal experiences of an autistic, including: message forums and video programming."
As far as I am aware the video programming (called AutTV) amongst several other resources started by Aspies For Freedom have all been abandoned to my knowledge though the forums and IRC network (ChatAutism) remain available, anyone able to clarify this before I edit the paragraph I have mentioned above? Pika Pikachu2005 19:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
AFF is no longer suffering problems
if you would like to ask questions just say them to me and I will place them on AFF. as the admins are and have been very busy for a while. hope this helps :) Flardox (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It would appear that cracks may be showing in the structure of this organisation.
In particular, the commentary made by the owner regarding copyright and DMCA which looking at it he has no case for. It looks more like he is hurt by the breakaway and is trying to stop it with comments like "Please don't create accounts and/or post there people." (page 5) Is he becoming a dictator maybe? Thoughts? This may be a notable event in the history of this group.01:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with Wiki; please read WP:NOTAFORUM. Chat can be deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I'm making a suggestion for possible inclusion in the article! 01:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the breakaway forum has been removed.09:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- That would appear to be so as the thread linked above is shown to not exist. Parcanman (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The forum has been temporarily locked I.E no new members at the moment
There has been talk of the forum being Dead and a new forum being created with most of the old members
not sure if this fits in here but I thought that it might add to the article as the forum is losing most of its members.
it it useful-wrongplanet has a 12 page thread on it, damn it grew....the site is down now, join us at WrongPlanet@ http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf76277-0-105.html
I've tagged this article as needing sources. The four provided are not enough to cover many of the statements made. The opening statement needs sourcing for a start. AinslieL (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the sourcing needs help. For example, the New Scientist link isn't working for me.--SPhilbrickT 12:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Self Publish Source
I've just read the cite note about the self published source. Having reviewed Wikipedia:Verifiability I can't decide if it applies to this case. While self promotion and publication are of course far from ideal, that section of the article is talking about the aims of the organisation, and them releasing a statement about those aims - is such a topic ok to use a statement release by the subject of the article? It does seem to meet the 5 points under Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves.
Of course one question is whether PRWeb is a reliable source (that's where the statement is posted) although as their about details state 'PRWeb was founded in 1997 to help small businesses leverage the Internet to communicate their news to the public.' and the article is signed by Amy Nelson it seems reasonable to conclude that Aspies for Freedom used PRWeb as the publisher for their statement. Bertcocaine (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- As no-one has replied to this I've concluded my original assumption is valid and removed the self published source note.--Bertcocaine (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I edited an article title in the references, only to discover that the article being referenced itself contained the typo I had just "fixed" (ref #7). I reverted my edit once I realised this. Now if only I could fix the typo in the original article's title... Chimæridæ (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm probably far too biased to add a suitable description of this one myself, but I have removed the existing inaccurate explanation of the meaning behind the infinity symbol. There is a post on the AFF forums explaining the symbology behind the infinity symbol, but basically the symbol was originally a snake biting it's own tail in a figure of 8 turned sideways, an "asp snake" to mean "aspie forever", coloured in a spectrum to represent the entire autistic spectrum. At the time it was first designed, it was referred to as the "infinity snake", a term which I still personally identify with.
Here is the post from the forums where I explained this:
Originally, myself, Amy and a few others (hi wolfy) were discussing possible logos. Amy proposed a logo that was positive rather than negative, rather than a "no curebie" logo. I don't recall the full details of the conversation but in summary the initial logo idea was what we called the "infinity snake".
An asp snake (asp for aspie), coloured in the rainbow (spectrum), biting it's own tail to form the infinity sign (aspie/autistic forever). However, the snake concept was lost after a while, the only such logo containing a snake being long-gone, but personally I still think of the infinity sign as the infinity snake. Source: http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthread.php?tid=15698&page=1 (requires login)
I will leave it up to someone less biased to edit the article to reflect this.
So, apparently their website is down and has been for a couple of days. First, is this significant to the article? Second, how can we reliably source when it went down? —C.Fred (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)