Talk:Absolutepunk.net

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Controversy section

I can (to some degree) understand why you guys don't like the FuckAbsolutePunk.net source (although the quoted article quotes AP.net's own sites), but what's wrong with Aversion? I don't see a reason to keep removing the whole paragraph based on the fact that you don't like one of the sources. (Oh, and on a sitenote to all those anonymous IPs, dissagreements should be discussed here on the talk page, so a consent can be reached. These edit wars really don't help anyone here.) --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

the controversy section has absolutely no validity. The site was made specifically to slam the site. Record labels and bands send out a lot of press releases and new information to music websites like ap.net as a mass e-mail much like a mailing list. Sometimes record labels have specific areas on their websites dedicated to releasing information to news outlets like the site. the reason why not all their news posts aren't cited from other sites is because every single site gets the same information at the same time. Just because a site posts it first doesn't make it their property because it's information given freely to all the sites. Also they do cite their sources when they take an article or interview directly from a site. There is no need for the section the source is simply un-credible. love-Myxomatosis 08:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would their be a fuckabsolutepunk.net website in the first place? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.96.10.214 (talk • contribs) .

Free speech, motherfucker! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.71.58.50 (talk • contribs) .

wow, great rebuttal.... -Myxomatosis 07:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If they credited their sources then there wouldn't cease and desist orders. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.226.216.196 (talk • contribs) .

oh yes because their is an over-abundance of evidence to prove your "claims"... Myxomatosis 07:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, Myxomatosis, you haven't disproven anything yourself. --HarryCane 11:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've worked on a music new site before and each site gets e-mails from the same music representative giving them news/press releases. You obviously arne't a regular visitor of the site because if you did you would take note that if a posting is taken from another site they cite their source whether it's a website or a user. If you have something against the site then take it somewhere else. A lot of the news posted on the site is posted on other sites because they are getting the news at the same time. It's not very hard to understand that fact. That's like saying MSNBC is ripping off CNN for making a news report on the war on Iraq. Both news outlets have the same resources. Myxomatosis 22:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt Aversion would issue a cease and desist order if they were just using the same press releases. It clearly states in their statement that the articles in question were written by Aversion staff. And please assume good faith: This isn't about having something against the site (I actually couldn't care less about it), it's about trying to create an unbiased, balanced article. And that also includes mentioning the negative aspects of the site (without taking a stand, obviously). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 08:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the controversy part so it's crystal clear these are merely allegations from another site, and not fact. I trust this is acceptable to all? - Glen ^T _C 19:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What exactly did you do? I looked at the history and do not see any of your edits. Anyways, it's not even NPOV anymore. This line is absolutely ridiculous "Tate and/or his supporters have been known to ban users criticising the website or his taste in music. In fact there have been numerous attempts to remove the controversy section of this very article." It sounds like the "Tate supporters" are the ones removing the controversy when there is no evidence to back that up.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sharpdust (talk • contribs) .

Yes, I find that bit strange too and removed it because it is unsourced and the self reference about the paragraph itself being removed is completely unencyclopedic. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 08:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What exactly did he do? He did this. User:Stollery signs as Glen. –Tifego^(t) _{09:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}

I agree that line is POV and should have been removed - however I was referring to the earlier portion re allegations of plagiarism, so as they did not read as if an "absolute" ('cuse the pun) -- Glen^T_C (Stollery) 06:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

This page is constantly vandalized. Someone needs to lock it.

Seconded. Lock it, lock it, lock it. NZHC 08:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Note to Vandalizers

Your IP addresses are public here and can be tied to your username on AP.net. If you choose to vandalize this page your account will be banned on AP. This seems logical. And by "vandalize" I mean editing staff names/jobs and the like - should be obvious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JasonTate AP (talk • contribs) 09:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC).