Talk:Maddox (writer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Schizmatic (talk | contribs) at 19:15, 20 July 2006 (→NPOV Dispute). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

NPOV Dispute

This article is way to one-sided to be counted as an encyclopedia article. It seems more like it was written by the self-inflated ego of "Maddox" than an objective observer... It needs to be more balanced. Only facts, and a section for criticism must be added as well... --jonasaurus 08:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as it is now (16:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)) it's very neutral. The only thing it could need is a criticisms section. I've removed the NPOV tag. - DNewhall

Some of this reads like his MySpace profile. Interests??? I agree that overall the article seems written by a fan (or by Maddox himself), but even if we all feel that it's neutral enough, I question whether his music and movie tastes belong in a serious encyclopedia.

It is entirely clear this was not written by Maddox. If it were, it wouldn't suck so much. I would agree; however, that some of the personal information is not relevant to the article. Metalrobot 15:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It reads fairly neutral, but it does need tweaking. A criticisms section is certainly required. Schizmatic 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who think's it's not neutral is out to lunch, I'll agree with the favorites being removed. Authors like Scott Keith get their criticism sections completly removed despite sourced examples with NPOV- if Maddox gets one we need to try and get a standard going across WP. --TheTruthiness 18:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A short section explaining why Maddox is so controversial wouldn't do any harm to the article. As it stands now, it is neutral, but a controversy section would be informative. Schizmatic 19:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

source

What is the source of his real name?

Sign your comments. His name has been published on several media sources. Quit worrying about such things if you can't even sign comments :) --84.249.252.211 12:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heres a source. http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/books/05/10/badboy.books.ap/index.html TheOneCalledA1 00:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this link also contains a lot of the information that the article wants citations for.24.18.44.64 03:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Stiller

I looked at Maddox's article on Ben Stiller, and I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic when he said that he loved Ben Stiller and that Ben Stiller should star in every movie. So if there's no objections, I'm going to edit the reference to Ben Stiller. Eratosthenes 00:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

by the time Mad Dox praises an "unmanly" character,it is obvious.And he is the best Armenian in the world as well :)) --85.107.176.129 19:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it blatantly obvious that he was being sarcastic? Did anyone really possibly believe he was serious? Drew88 13:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plebmonk 23:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC) this whole article is very childishly written, it doesn't seem very coherant at all[reply]

It was sarcastic. I feel sorry for the person who didn't get the message. Metalrobot 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn of the Dead

I'm only 75% sure, but I think he's also being sarcastic about Dawn of the Dead too. AllStarZ 00:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content

This article is so "blah blah blah". Do we really need to document every time he announces something? I don't feel its relevant--make a timeline if it really must be included.65.33.247.12 05:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but you've cut a lot of "relevant" information with your edit. TimCBaker 06:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video game

Can someone find a link and post it? I'm sure people would find it interesting, even though it really doesn't merit mention in the article (unless he ever took serious steps towards its execution). Yeago 17:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't announce anything besides regarding the YTMND bit (rehosting it and calling any serious coders out there), so yeah, I guess it should remain out of the article until he actually formally says something about it. Hbdragon88 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The (current) #9 reference (http://www.gorillamask.net/archive/000240.shtml) is outdated. I'm replacing the link with archive.org's latest copy of it. (http://web.archive.org/web/20050205192644/www.gorillamask.net/archive/000240.shtml) TimCBaker 01:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maddox_(writer)&oldid=64901961"