Talk:Internet group Anonymous hacks No Cussing Club's website, owner's e-mail account

Spam list

I need to know how to remove Encyclopedia Dramatica from the spam blacklist. I have to use a link to them as a source in the article. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Added to spam whitelist. Should work now. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How can Encyclopedia Dramatica be considered a source for anything? --SVTCobra 03:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That is considered, at least in my knowledge 'Anons' hang out. And the screenshot clearly states they are responsible, and are clearly admitting it. So it would only be logical, and within policy to include the statement they make in the link provided. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider me confused. Anons hanging out? What? But besides that confusion, didn't you list that exact same Encyclopedia Dramatica source as inappropriate on this very same collaboration page? (look down) --SVTCobra 04:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to remove it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Why is Anonymous being written about as if they are heroes when in fact they have committed a crime? Just because they became popular with their Scientology protests, doesn't mean they should be worshiped as heroes. --SVTCobra 17:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I never mention once that they are heroes. I mention nothing but the facts of their background. If you can find a better way to re-word it, please do so. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think this article glorifies Anonymous then, in my opinion, you have lost objectivity. --SVTCobra 17:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do show me exactly what you speak of. I again do not at any time "glorify" anyone. And in case you have not noticed the tag at the top of the article that says develop? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I also find no hero worship here. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The new title helps, as does the mention that the hacking is a crime. Much better now. --SVTCobra 22:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fraud

What fraud? I didn't find anywhere on nocussing.com any claims that they are a non-profit organization. So of course the founder and his publisher are 'pocketing' the profits. --SVTCobra 17:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The founder and the publisher are one in the same. See this site: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/nocussing.com. This sight also shows the location of the site/publishing company in California. Using this as a source for location to reference computer hacking laws in that state. I just don't think it belongs in the sources. Add if you think it does please. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Also do you not define fraud as allegedly forging a 15 y/o's material, then claiming he wrote it? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no coherent explanation of forgery to back up the title. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

People use ghost writers all the time in books, so why would it be a problem on a website? Brent Hatch didn't seem to do it against his son's wishes. McKay Hatch was doing interviews etc in support of the website. --SVTCobra 22:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not sure a whois entry saying tech & admin contacts are a publishing company necceasirily mean the publisher and the founder are the same entities. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, in one of the e-mails he allegedly signs it 'Dawson Publishing'. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Links not appropriate for sources

But used as in article for information.

• Brent Hatch's website DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• No Cussing Club DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see why they're not appropriate for sources. If we got info from them, then they're a source of information (If not, we could put them in external links section maybe). Bawolff ☺☻ 04:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Added to external. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Accidental sighting

I accidentally sighted the article. Is there any way to unsight? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

kinda through special:stabilization - but its not really worth it to do anything. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Only the combination of {{publish}} and sighting will put the article "out there" for public consumption. So I think you are ok, Joshua.--SVTCobra 03:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OR

I added what little statement I could get out of the NCC. I forwarded the e-mail through scoop for accredited reporters to see. They are afraid I am not who I say I am, so I am not sure they will write back. I did write to them with my telephone number and accreditation page link. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been visiting the NCC website throughout the day. It would appear that at some points you get a site not found error. I would only assume, based on the attack and experience I had on reporting about Scientology's website, that it appears they are DDoS'ing the NCC. Not sure how anyone else can prove this, as it is only sometimes. I added it to the article, if you disagree, please remove. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a DOS attack would cause a 404 error. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Review

Revision 755920 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: November Charlie --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 755920 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: November Charlie --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.