Badmovies.org Forum

I had noticed that a number of Wikipedia articles had links to the site.  Usually the links pointed to a review for a movie with an entry on Wikipedia.  None of these were my doing, I had never added a link or reference to Badmovies.org on Wikipedia before today.

I was recently told that links from Wikipedia to Badmovies.org were being removed.  It looks like someone went in and removed all of them (well, finished doing so).  Looking at Google's cache, some are still in the cache, but at one point I think there were around 200 links from the online information resource to Badmovies.org.  Now it appears there are 0, but 43 are still in Google's cache.  You can check for yourself.  Look at the live page, then at the cached one (external links - bottom of the Wikipedia article).

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=badmovies.org+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org

I went ahead and added back the link in the "B-Movie" article.  However, I wonder who took the time to go through and delete every single link.  That is odd behavior.

According to the history for each pages, it was somebody called Irishguy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Irishguy).  The reason listed  is "removed linkspam".  Why anybody would assume a link to a page that had everything to do with a bad movie would be considered spam is unknown to me.  Maybe you have an enemy.

Anyway, looks like most of the links were removed April 8.  My guess is the guy just did a search for badmovies.org and deleted every occurrence.

Andrew,

Awhile back, I was going to mention to you about all of the links to Badmovies.org on Wikipedia but I forgot to do so.

It seemed like every B-movie I looked at on Wikipedia, when I scrolled all the way down to the bottom of the page, sure enough, there was a link to one of your reviews.

Why would someone remove all of the links to this site from Wikipedia?

Maybe someone has a grudge against you.   :question:
Can you think of anyone you p**sed off recently?

I think Wikipedia has recently tightened up who can edit -- maybe that's just for certain articles.  Seems strange.

Well, it is kind of a big deal being that links on Wikipedia will factor into how some search engines will determine a site's page strength. I would love to have just one link; having 200 links deleted is kick in the groin. This Irishguy should be reported to them for questionable motives.

I agree with Menard.  (Quick, write this down in the history books)   :wink:

It seems extremely strange that this "IrishGuy" is going through and deleting each badmovies.org link.  It does sound like he's someone who has something against the site, but who knows what exactly.

Interesting, Andrew.  I just checked the page, and the link has been re-removed by DGeist with the following notation:

"rv--clearly personal website; evidence suggest's Irishguy's identification as linkspam is correct; reinserter associated with obvious vandalism"

Personally, I fail to see how that assertion can be made about BadMovies.org and not about any of the other (fine) sites listed in the external links section.

Puzzling.

Having had some chance to look at his history and discussion boards (Irishguy appears to be a mod), I think that he often goes through and deletes fan pages and such.  I think he has a personal vendetta against them.  In support of him, it appears that Wikipedia does not support nor discourage linking to reviews or other external content.  In fact, it is discouraged to link to your own content.  I will go and remove Badmovies.org from the external links for "b-movie" since I put this latest one in there.

What I believe happened is that he noticed "Badmovies.org" as an external link for many reviews.  He then went on a crusade to remove every entry.  He did not at any point contact myself.

Interesting that other bad movie sites were left in the external links though...if this is one of the people who have wronged me in the past, they should leave my cage alone.  I do not feel like being annoyed.

Typing at the same time I see.  Well, obviously I do not need to go and remove the link.  Perhaps I should ask about the removal though.  I will have to look into what is going on tonight.  If someone has a personal vendetta, then that is a breach of what Wikipedia is about.  Nor do I like someone having a personal vendetta against me, without telling me.

"Obvious vandalism" is a really interesting choice of words.  Methinks that something is afoot and it does not smell nice.

I should mention that one of my concerns here is that a stated intent of Badmovies.org is to be a resource and a hub for people who love b-movies, cult films, and bad movies. 

Judging by the edits over at Wikipedia, other sites meet that criteria, but Badmovies.org does not.  I am pretty familiar with every other site listed under the external reviews and wonder what we are missing here.  Certainly, if someone is looking to learn about a film, there is a horde of information to be found by posting  on the message board or checking a review (if available).

Andrew, what this site needs is its own Wikipedia page. Many other sites, like Rotten Tomatoes, have write-ups.

OT~

From Wiki:
"In 2004, the website IGN Entertainment acquired Rottentomatoes.com. In September 2005, IGN was bought out by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp."

That's funny. That's about the same time I (and many other long time posters) stopped posting on RT because it had become so bloated and infested with some really strange and aggressive trolls.

I still have a "stickie" thread on one of their forums.  :bouncegiggle:

I'm looking at the Talk page and thinking about starting a talk topic on just this issue.  Clearly, this site is just as legit for the External Links list as those listed.  Irishguy's removal is nowhere near as puzzling given your explanation as DGeist's subsequent comment after re-removal.  There seems to be a double standard in what is considered a good link and a bad one.

It's funny, because in January, DGeist got into a mini argument on the talks page about that wikipedia entry being a Featured Article.  He seems to me to be the self-appointed arbiter of the B Movies wiki page.  Maybe I am prejudging him and it is all a misunderstanding.

Done.

B Movie Talk Page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:B_movie)  (scroll to bottom)

This is very curious.

And I have added some information.  I do not believe that the people who are throwing about the vandal label are familiar with information assurance.  I am also interested in seeing if they come up with any other validation besides Irishguy.  Unfortunately, this issue may show a weakness of Wikipedia.

Very cool.  DCGeist has found a "loophole" and is reposting the link.

In my opinion, the issue exposes a too-literal interpretation of the acceptable links policy.  If I had to guess, I'd say "no personal web sites" clause is to avoid stuff like you find on geocities; clearly this site, with the better part of a decade and a clear, knowledgable user community meets the criterion DCGeist mentions.

I would like to think the site is more than your normal description of a "personal site."  If nothing else, the forum is a huge resource.  Nothing has ever expanded my knowledge of our type of movies like reading this forum for the last seven years or so.

I think what we are also seeing is the "Wild West" phase of Wikipedia.  A lot of stuff will be done off the cuff, with no precedent to cover it.  What concerns me now is how often Wikipedia is used as a reference.  I can understand why some schools disallow it as a reference.  Time will tell how the online tome of knowledge matures.

I am sure one will turn up sooner or later.  I have not been keeping an eye on it, but the page could be one written by someone who dislikes me on a personal level just as easily as someone who likes the site.  In fact, people often take action against something that they dislike.

To be fair, these days I receive far more friendly emails than hateful.  Either the Internet has changed or something about the site has changed.  It could also be my writing.  I do not threaten to kick people's a**es that often anymore.  The last was, what, the "Cavegirl" review?

I do. :teddyr:

I nominate Mernard as BadMovies.org Public Relations Exec/Spokesmodel.

I am truly honored and I shall do my best to represent this site and forum to others as a collection of people just like me; they will flock in droves to the site. (http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Laughing/lol-065.gif)

I am certain that, somewhere in the bylaws, I have line item veto power.  Time to blow the dust off of those and find the exact page it is on.  I think it is right before the mandate that all forum posters wear berets when posting.

Many of the Wikipedia admins have ego problems, and their actions far outshine the many who want to do a good job on the site.  I got into a revert war over one entry with some guy who accused me of "wikistalking" him and called me Chad.  I have no idea who Chad is, but I thought it was funny he was freaking out so much so I kept reveting it back (and his information was wrong, anyway)  They recently had a big fight where around 12 admins deleted almost every photo over copywrite issues (ignoring fair use cases as well)  One of my favorite hobbies is to look up articles like "Bat" and "Batman" to see which one has the most information  (Batman wins by a landslide)

One of the funniest things I've ever seen on Wikipedia was someone dismissing imdb as an "unreliable" source for an article on a film that hasn't been made yet.

 :bouncegiggle:

PR flack, yeah, he's got the right disposition for that. Hell, I say make him the next White House Press Secretary, regardless of which party wins. He'd be more fun than any in recent memory, for sure.

Spokesmodel? Nah we need a scream queen for the job, or based on avatar I nominate Poogie. Like the real Elvira's all that busy these days anyway, she could use the proxy attention, probable trademark be damned.

While some schools disallow it, I think some schools do allow it, but the information cited has to be backed up by another source.

I use it, when I am on the computer. When I am on the computer and looking for information, it is easier to bring up Wikipedia, then it is to get out of the chair and look for the information in an encyclopedia.

 :bouncegiggle:

I second or third the nomination of Dr Menard as our PRO. :teddyr:

At my highschool it's really based on the teacher. Some let you use it, while others don't. Although it's reliability is questionalble it still is easier than trying to search google for the same info.

Although I'm definitaly a new guy around here, from what I've seen of Menard I'll throw in a vote for him as PR.