Talk:Neowin/Archive 3

Mods Abusing Powers

I deleted the sentence claiming that some moderators have been known to abuse their powers. There is no source or proof of this.. it does not belong in the article unless there is some evidence given. 69.118.242.33 04:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Page Cleaned, Good Luck

The vote to keep the new version of this article passed unanimously. I've archived it above. I was hoping that would be a fresh start for this page and several people put a lot of work into making this page respectable, but it seems that it has just gotten reverted again to the old version that is unorganized and unedited. Therefore, I have decided to absolve myself of this article and let it become whatever the community lets it become as I will not waste my time playing revert wars with anonymous IPs.

-Noneloud 07:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Due to Dan Davis encouraging me to come back to this page, I've decided to do so. Hopefully all of this Brazil4Linux crud is over and done with

-Noneloud 04:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Staff list?

Is this really necessary? —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think not. Wikipedia:Vanity

What does "Wikipedia Vanity" have to do in any way, shape or form with this? None of the NeoWin creators are involved in this article at all, and neither are any family of NeoWin- which is what that link you posted refers to. Daniel Davis 22:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

Personally, I don't think Wikipedia:Vanity has anything to do with the staff list, but having the staff list on the page seems really un-encyclopedic. A staff list really provides no extra information to the article about the site itself, so I think that BorgHunter's decision is justified.

-Noneloud 04:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

POV? Or true?

How can dull this down to fit the article. I find sound parts of it are true: " Their high traffic discussion forums are frequented by zealous, bright, young Microsoft fan boys, who enjoy (among other things) testing illegal beta software." [1]. Food for thought; Karma be damned. --Depakote 14:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you be a bit clearer? "How can dull this down to fit the article. I find sound parts of it are true" doesn't quite make sense... Daniel Davis 00:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

Current Version

What is the problem with the current version? Loneloud's version is ugly, poor developed and formated. Don't justify keep a crap-deloped article to satisfy the vanity of Loneloud IMHO. I'm no seeing any move of Loneloud for article increase and absolutely nothing to adjust as minimum-decent formatting. This is Encyclopedia afertall and not "This site and authors too". --LaMaroche 20:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Hello again Brazil4Linux. Please stop reverting the page back to a version that's now well over two months old. The *real* current version is quite good in and of itself, and is the result of a lot of hard work on the part of many indiviuals. Daniel Davis 21:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

Oye vey... -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 09:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Neocum

Marcel Klum and Steven Parker’s adult forum NeoCum.com deserves inclusion in this article. Neowin was underwritten by Neocum.

OT: What is the reason for Talk:Neowin if comments on the article are just deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.223.140 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry to say that your information is pure nonsense that is why it is being removed. Jedi6 04:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This also sounds like complete nonsense to me and doesn't meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. A google search turns up nothing to support what you're suggesting here. If you can't back this up with a reputable source and reference, it doesn't belong here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 04:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A basic Google search for the terms “Neobond RedMak Neocum” delivers archived forum postings from 2000 authored by both Neobond and RedMak on a variety of topics including but not limited to establishing NeoCum.com

Direct url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:qPxIzEt_aq4J:users2.cgiforme.com/neobond/cfmboard.html+Neobond+RedMak+Neocum&hl=en&lr=&strip=1

It’s unlikely two posters on an adult message board, would conspire to impersonate the founders of Neowin.net before that community is even established.

Nonetheless, I will update with a reputable source and reference, in the next few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.223.140 (talk • contribs)

Just because they have the same username doesn't mean they are the same person. Also that doesn't mean they created Neocum either, it might just be fans copying it. Jedi6 04:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Expanding the article

I've wanted to expand this article and make it more in-dept for some time now, but I just can't seem to figure out where to start. I'm reallyworried about point of view when it comes to changing this as even though there is none to little point of view present, people still think that the article is worthy of deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neowin .

Please write back with ideas. I'm stumped on this one.

-Noneloud 04:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and be Bold. Jedi6-(need help?) 20:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV Comments

Does anyone object to me removing these comments:

The forum moderators are often considered to be too strict in their judgement. For example, one user on Neowin made a post on the forums offering to help with the IRC chat server. A moderator quickly closed the post with a rude comment: "Thank you, come again." The moderator could have simply said that Neowin did not require help, but instead they offered a rude and uninformative comment. Some users have begun to joke about the strictness of the moderators with remarks such as "the Gestapo has closed another post" and related sarcastic remarks.

xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 19:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I did add something back in about moderation but I kept it as factual and unbiased as possible. The point is the Neowin is moderated more than other similar forums. Esptoronto 18:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

--Yeah I object, because it's true. They will change usernames on people without valid proof, all someone has to do is cry "hacker"

Shift

Neowin 5 has effectively been canceled, and Shift has pretty much taken over, so should we remove the section on "The Future of Neowin" and expand more on Shift? Also, the shot of the front page is of V3, should we move to a screen of Shift? --Simon360 00:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Simon360! Yea, replace that image. I have no idea how to do that full screen screenshot though, so if you could do it, I'd appreciate it. I don't know exactly what to say about shift though. - xxpor ( Talk| Contribs) 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Finity/Last Screenshot

A preview of Neowin 5 ("Finity") <<caption to the very last screenshot

• I pretty sure that No.5 wasn't Finity, and Finity has since been scraped for Shift, so do we still need that picture?. Peachey88 08:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Neowin 5 was Finity, but Finity was downgraded to version 4 and renamed Shift. I think the plan is to one day upgrade Shift to the feature set planned for Neowin Finity, but it hasn't happened yet. However, this is the last surviving picture of what v5 was supposed to look like. Maybe we need a page called Neowin Finity? I know lots of people who still like to look at it, since it was a nice upgrade, and people can look at it and sometimes just compare it to what we got. WE actually got more in v4 in my opinion, but not all of the promised features, and a slightly downgraded look. --205.251.4.109 00:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Neowin and warez

I don't know, my memory sort of fails me, but did Neowin ever (between 2000-2002) offer warez on IRC? I think they sneaked it in somehow... I think it's important we get to the bottom of this and try to find proof, it would of been before google was around -- I think they had bots in like #neowin-files or something that gave out whistler/office builds. Anyway, just wanted to mention, I didn't want to say anything without direct evidence/source. :D --24.7.194.240 14:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Neowin staff is from United Kingdom.

I undid this edit. Neowin staff are not exclusively from the UK. One Admin is from Netherlands, one Admin is from Detroit and two Admins are from the U.K. Two Supervisors are from Canada, one is from Thailand and two are from the United States. Then there are Global Mods, Forum Mods, Newsposters and News Staff to think about. I don't think you can begin to justify to say that Neowin Staff members are exclusively from the United Kingdom. Esptoronto 19:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Audience and moderation

The Audience section reads like a bit too much written with a POV in mind. Parts I'm talking of:

"Neowin community is basically Microsoft zealotry - with large concentration of Fanboys of Redmond products. Apple, Sony and Linux are considered evil to rivalize with various Microsoft products."

This reads very odd to me, as Neowin (despite its name) has several highly active forums specifically discussing e.g. Apple / OS X and Linux, and then definitely not in a negative regard. Developers on Neowin are involved in their own Linux distro, Shift Linux. I also frequently read attacks on Microsoft on their forum, where users are free to debate in an orderly fashion. It seems like a place with a varied community although I agree with a focus on Windows, but far from a breeding ground of "Microsoft zealots" that this part reads like. Heck, the place even have frequent IE / Firefox flame wars, and that's not happening on boards without a sizable Firefox population. There is also notable support of FOSS applications there.

"This turns Neowin a very closed community to new users that are harrassed if supports Microsoft rivals."

I often attack Microsoft for things if they've deserved it, and there use to be quite eloquent threads on such subjects even on Neowin, where people are most certainly not banned. Again, this reads almost like having been typed by a banned user of Neowin!

Thanks for reading my concerns, and I hope this section can be revised to leave out judgements of their users and moderators. If people still doubt what I'm saying, I can bring you several thread examples to clarify what I mean. -- Northgrove 17:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced

I added the unsourced template because no reliable seconday sources are quoted in the article. Without sources someone could challenge the subject's notability at any time (though obviously the popularity of the site would seem to indicate that the sources exist somewhere) nadav 19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Neologo.gif

Image:Neologo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)