Talk:AbsolutePunk

Requested move
Absolutepunk.net → AbsolutePunk.net — AbsolutePunk.net is the official title seen on the website. —Aavillagomez 06:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Staff Updated
The staff section needs to be updated and there's nothing that we can really do about it now that it's locked.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.108.210.196 (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Done.

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 S. (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 S. (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? - Gl e n 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 S. (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) -- Gl e nTC  (Stollery)  06:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a single thing is factual in this "controversy" section -- this is completely against Wikipedia guidelines. Stop this shit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.225.108 (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

This is ridiculous
Why is this the only page where NOTHING negative is mentioned? Look around at other subjects about opiniated persons/organizations, they all have critisism displayed in their wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.200.215 (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that there really is a great deal of criticism of the website--plenty doubt its journalistic integrity and find lots of other flaws potentially harmful to the independent music scene. The problem is there aren't really any substantial pieces of evidence about this. It's more than likely that things like the BoysNightOut leak, etc. are well founded and FuckAbsolutePunk was so elaborate a criticism that it seems weird not to mention... but THESE sources don't cite THEIR sources. So when people delete the criticism section because the facts are "unfounded"... well, yes, but are we attempting to cite the accuracy of the controversy, or simply that the controversy exists? I feel like we can find a way to acknowledge the criticism without allowing the Wikipedia page to be an endorsement of its truthfulness. IamCaryGrant (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

But there are many controversies that are true, it's just that there's no media coverage for it because ap.net isn't really in interest of the popular media. So, instead of someone starting a site with all the controversies on ap.net, maybe a deletion submission is in order? I've read the guidelines and AP.NET is eligable for deletition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.200.215 (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It DID start as a blink-182 fansite
I actually ran a blink-182 fansite back from 1998 to 2001. Absolute Punk did in fact start as a blink-182 fansite. It was small, nothing but HTML, and it relied mostly on fansite "top website" lists and web rings for its traffic. It was usually in the top 3 spots on most of the better known blink-182 top lists. I was on them as well. His site later became a MXPX+blink-182 fansite. As Tate went to college and began networking with people, and pretending to be a punk, he decided to to the e-zine thing. The end.

Deletion/restoration of article
I deleted this article pursuant to Articles for deletion/AbsolutePunk.net (2nd nomination). Upon request, I later userfied it to Kissable and Quiet, and restored it after improvements by Paul Erik. In my opinion, the article now meets the notability guideline. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  18:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Original research
I've removed a section that describes some contentious relationships that the website has had with certain bands, since it appears to be in violation of our original research policy. The section cited message boards on AbsolutePunk.net and used that to make some general conclusions about the website "attacking" bands. A section like that can be permitted here only if descriptions of these events exist in other sources. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I Will Fight wristband.jpg