Talk:Meow Wars/Archive 1

Piffle
Does this piffle belong in an encyclopaedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Carr (talk • contribs) 03:05, 19 September 2003 (UTC)

It's more amusing than capsule biographies of Pokemon characters. Is this a fiction? What it needs is brilliant wikification, linking it to every computer article... but not by User:Wetman I hasten to append. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetman (talk • contribs) 04:03, 19 September 2003 (UTC)

VfD
 -most votes in favor of retaining article which has since been npov'd
 * Meow Wars, not NPOV (if you are from Harvard) and a possible copyvio from Ark30inf 03:11, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- Jake 06:20, 2003 Sep 21 (UTC)
 * Probably not NPOV. But I can assure you that Jeff Boyd of godhatesjanks.com couldn't care less about the possible copyvio. --Shpxurnq 21:22, 21 Sep 2003
 * I could claim prior art (my work on the matter in 1996), but I freely grant any and all use of this material. Thanks muchly, David
 * Don't delete if it's just an NPOV problem. Angela
 * Don't delete just because the POV reference! --Daniel C. Boyer 18:53, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This could be a nice article on the whole vampire.flonk trolling phenomenon, which would match nicely with slashdot trolling phenomenon. Martin 16:37, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Xemblinosky
Information on J. Raoul Xemblinosky III should either be purged from article or rewritten for NPOV. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:20, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Raoul Xemblinosky — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinHarper (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 October 2003 (UTC)

It happened
Nope. It all really happened, and I really exist. Thankyoudrivethrough. --Shpxurnq 23:22, 24 Jan 2004

Incoherent
This article is completely incoherent! Who, what, when, why, where? Meelar 02:39, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
This NPOV thing has already been fixed once before. - Staloff, 27 August 2004

Meowers
Added a bit to try and explain why they were called Meowers. Hopefully it's sufficiently neutral. iMeowbot~Mw 20:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

VFD archive
This page was proposed for deletion December 2004. The archived discussion is available at Votes for deletion/Meow Wars. Joyous 22:35, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Absurd
This article is absurd, far more worthy content has been deemed "vanity" and deleted from Wikipedia, there's no good reason for this non-noteworthy article to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.59.179 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 June 2005 (UTC)

- Agree, this article is nothing more than some internet kid's playground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.235.130.52 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Who?
And exactly WHO would ever want to know about it?

Hey, remember the Great MNUPD Wars that happened in a long defunct mailing system between two very eager internet users? Man, we sure had a blast. Call CNN, RIGHT NOW, cameras at six! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.176.111.56 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 4 July 2005 (UTC)

Question
It's talk about the meow wars or about the meowers?.

Meow wars was a interesting history and even it's funny but this wiki is weak, not showing at all the true reasons behind the wars :a fight into a bunch of snobbist vs trolls and blamebaiters. The result was not obvious.. even with a lot of meowers banned for a "lifetime" they was victorious, pushing back a auto-defined "elitist class" with a single and non-intelligent but effective strategy :spam. Magallanes 16:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

POV problem
The article is almost subtly enthusiastic about the flame war, if not patronising about it. I also have a problem with the inherent POV-ness of the statement of "all time". -- Natalinasmpf 01:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as a very active user of Usenet since 1986, I had never heard of the Meow Wars, found this article while reading about cats, was fascinated and amused by it. Isn't it hard, and is it desirable, to be strictly NPOV on a topic as absurd as this? WBcoleman 18:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A rather opaque article
Very difficult to understand, esspecially the beginning. Couldn't someone make it more oredered, detailed and accessible? And also, why is it called a flame war when it seems to have been mass spamming by a group of people. Flame wars are when two or more parties disagree on some point and resort to mutually insulting each other. But this was clearly the Meowers spamming usenet groups with non-sense messages without seeking to insult any group in particular, so why call it a flame war rather than spamming? Loom91 07:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. I changed it. Antonrojo 00:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not notable
I'd say this is probably one of the ten least notable things I've ever read in my life. W guice 13:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why Suddenly No POV Problem?
How have we established that the article is NPOV, yet not "strictly NPOV", whatever that means? The standard for all of Wikipedia is NPOV, not just for topics on Wikipedia which are not "not absurd". If it's too absurd and so subjective as to be too hard to cover, perhaps this suggests that the entry has too much verbiage, and attempts to address matters better left to a columnist, not a researcher or an editor. All this article should do is explain, as concisely as possible, what the "Meow Wars" were.--Telarc 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.karl-malden.nose/msg/79fb02daae3ef89d?dmode=source&hl=en shows Kalisch reposting a "meower's" article that had been cancelled by an unknown party. How can one then generalize that he is "anti-meower"? This suggests things were not as clear-cut as the article says they were. Telarc 23:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Battlebox
Since these are the "Meow Wars," perhaps someone knowledgable could write up a battlebox? 128.255.128.46 21:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In-universe
This article is written in a very "in-universe" style - as though it was a war. I mean, "the harvard students retreated to a private server"? Hmm. Thedreamdied 00:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

what seems to be the problem?
i've just stumbled over this article as i was researching mi5 persecution and the meow wars, and found it a rather positive surprise to find such information on wikipedia. i don't see why this should be deleted. if there are any problems with accuracy, quotations or npov - please go ahead and fix em, if you must. just deleting everything than does not appeal to your high and mighty standards is... silly and petty, really! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.175.54 (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

VfD again
I am nominating this article again for deletion on the grounds that it is not notable, the sources cited are highly dubious and that no additional citations have been added as requested (as per the citation tag).99.247.175.31 (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion link goes to an old archived deletion discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

don't delete
As someone who was on Usenet during the "meow wars" (we called them meow cascades, and the were not limited to just the groups listed in the article), I'd like to see this article fixed up and kept. It was a significant part (annoyance!) of Usenet. Cheeze53 (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So why not help by finding at least one WP:RS? Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)