Talk:Maddox (writer)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Personal Information & Early Life

Like all article this is really the starting point. When this information is lacking, we start running into issues. Is anyone able to locate information on his DOB, hometown, parents, childhood, etc?Rotovia (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Who does he write for?

I can't find any validation for the magazine writing claim. Who does he write for? Also, some of the stuff listed on here and his page for BPITU contradicts things actually on his website, such as he implies being a literary or communications major, yet says on his FAQ that he's a math major. Major, major clean-up and clarification is needed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.15.142 (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the magazine-writing claim, although I agree it needs reform. When I wrote that, Maddox had a column called "The Big Rant" in Cracked magazine, but the magazine has since ceased publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.109.56 (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Shock-jockery

He's not on the radio, but still he's a shock-jock with his articles. Although they're funny they're like a Don Imus show except with more bang for your buck. 70.161.245.18 05:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

This [1] is the salon.com interview cited in the Criticism section. It seems to me that the issue with women is quite resolved within. As for disabled people, I don't see anywhere in the Christopher Reeve article [2] any fun-making of anyone besides Reeve, except perhaps in the politically incorrect term "cripple". I had a skim over the section here that produced the Criticism, and it looks to me that it wasn't very well thought out. I am not too familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines, but I wouldn't think that a page always needs a criticism section to be neutral. -- 008 20:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo

This guy is on a major book tour right now. Surely someone can take a freely licensed photograph of him so we don't have to break the law by using a fair use image. Also, given that some of the shots were taken from personal cameras by some of his fans, I highly doubt that they are official "publicity shots", but I'll leave that for someone else to figure out. Hbdragon88

Cool. PD image provided. Original photo tagged with orphaned fairuse replaced. Hbdragon88 02:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the introduction, it says he is a graduate of the U of U. Later, it says he dropped out. Which is it?

I believe he is still attending, but by now he may have dropped out to persue his career. don't panic 08:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

According to his book, he dropped out. It is barely a reliable source, but I have noted that citation is needed to give people a chance to find something better. J Milburn 22:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the introduction needs to be reworked. He never graduated: http://media.www.dailyutahchronicle.com/media/storage/paper244/news/2007/01/19/Ae/The-Best.Interview.In.The.Universe-2654691.shtml --JackyJ 00:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Original comment is almost a year old. Discussion is long dead. Article was obviously heavily edited by a fanboy but its on its way.Yeago 19:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, didn't look at the date of the first comment. My bad. --TheTruthiness 20:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Is a criticism section still wanted? I could add a short paragraph with some citations. Guest Account 18:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Real name 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Yeah, it was totally not "coherant"

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

The correct spelling is 'coherent'

I sure wish someone had said that before 72.144.103.202 22:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Unlikely, due to the love for the items mentioned in said article being a common theme in his work. (Earlier examples mostly.) --Equiton 00:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

Outdated Reference Link

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)

Removing webmaster from profile

I've noticed on his site maddox professes his hatred for the term webmaster. Maybe we should remove it from his profile? I'll add links to this later, unless someone adds them first --Mbatterham 03:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because he hates the term doesn't mean it's untrue, nor is that a reason to remove it. Unless there's a better word for a guy who owns and runs his own website that could replace it, because I don't believe he's a webmaster for any 3rd party sites. --TheTruthiness 07:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye article.

This article is on its way. Good job guys. *unwatch*Yeago 04:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So, it's been since July, and it's still not gone. Embarassed yet?

I think what was meant was that the he/she put the article on their watchlist, but, as it then improved, removed it. I know I do it often enough. J Milburn 22:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Magnum Opus: The Alphabet of Manliness"

Bullshit. It's inarguable that BPITU is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more successful than his book.. but then again, it's an on-going site, so what do we do? --nlitement ^[talk] 19:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I don't think it should be counted as his Magnum Opus is because it's his only book. In some cases like J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, you can say that's her Magnum Opus, but usually you have to wait until a writer has gotten well into his career to say which work is his best. As it stands Maddox only has one book, you can't compare it to anything else except the site and the site wins. I say we get rid of the Magnum Opus entry entirely.

According to Merriam-Webster "Magnum Opus" means "a great work; especially : the greatest achievement of an artist or writer". So it doesn't have to be the greatest per se. It just seems kind of silly if he can release one more book like a year from now, and then it will be "okay" to put Alphabet in there. I don't know in the modern age if internet works can be considered or not. --TheTruthiness 01:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This guy gets an article?

Why is it that other Internet phenomenon (Jeffree Star anyone?) aren't allowed pages and yet this comical smartass gets one? They both make me laugh. They both (Arguably) are of the same (nonexistant) fame list. Wikipedia is like a microcosm of America. None of the administration here is interested in truth or free exchange of information, you all just want to appeal to the moral majority. Three cheers for integrity being a brick to the head in the land that is a disgrace to the open market that is the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.114.24 (talk • contribs)

Maddox is far more notable than... Jeffree Star? Yes, yes he is. What is an "Internet phenomenon" anyway? How does one measure that? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Maddox has a website that gets more views than Pepsi and a best-selling book. That doesn't make him an "Internet phenomenon. I've never heard of this "Jeffree Star" guy/girl, I just read that he's a tranvestite with a MySpace...that's hardy notable or even an internet meme. --TheTruthiness 06:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And Jeffree probably gets more views than them as well? I've never read of this "Maddox" either, I got linked to his page by a friend via AIM, so that doesn't exactly assist his credibility. As for why Jeffree deserves a page-- he's doing just as much as most other new artists are doing. He's on magazine covers, he's getting (Indie) interviews, he's a model, and most importantly he's making an album (and has demos available). So if being a music artist doesn't qualify one for an article, what does? Does the album have to be released first? Does it have to sell a certain amount? I see plenty of crappy debut artists littered throughout Wikipedia and they don't get attacked. If I linked them to you, RoyBoy, would you delete them as well? Quite curious. You all seem to raise the question quite often "Why?" when all I'm asking is "Why not?". Are we adding articles based on how popular the subject matter is? Perhaps I should make a website calling the ethics of Wikipedia into question and then I can call myself WikiMaddox, and if I get enough hits, make it into Wiki articles as a super social critic. But we all know that wouldn't stand now would it?Sophia Demiurge 16:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Alexa Traffic Ranking (lower number=higher ranking, like a music chart)- jeffreecuntstar.com: 2,756,707; Pepsi.com: 15,058; Mcdonalds.com: 8,066; maddox.xmission.com: 6,228. So no, Jeffree gets WAY fewer views. Of course, that holds no bearing on this article- Maddox easy meets the nobability requirements as a popular web writer and best-selling author. If you have an issue with Jeffree not being able to have an article, you'll have to take it up with the admins. I suggest you follow the guidelines to try and improve Wikipedia by tagging articles you question the notability of, instead of complaining about articles for people you've never heard of because you live under a rock. --TheTruthiness 19:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I ask why because I know something is amiss, and because I'm an admin. Why not? Because notability hasn't remotely been demonstrated for Jeffree (it has been for Maddox). Yes, having a record (released by a major label) qualifies someone as notable. As to an indie label, I'm unsure. One would have to check Wikipedia:Notability (music) and consult with editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. I would say that a musician seeking (or needing) free publicity from Wikipedia is likely to be non-notable. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I know this is old, but does anyone else see an agenda issue here? Someone pushing the removal of a politcaly incorrect, biggotive person's article and at the same time they're asking to make an article about some random transvestite? --IronMaidenRocks 13:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny, Maddox and Jeffree Star seem to be complete opposites in personality. Maddox is the manly king of the internet, while Jeffree is the tranvestite queen. How ironic. Oh, I think that guy needs an artilce too, even though I'm not really a fan of his.66.76.71.254 13:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well create a page on jeffery star already. Who cares? And what does talking about him on the maddox article discussion accomplish?TheDarknessVisible 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia banned the creation of a Jeffery Star page. XD --IronMaidenRocks 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As it should, people with MySpace pages don't count as internet memes. Tila Tequilla doesn't have a page, does she? And she's the most popular person on that site, right? Meanwhile, Maddox's page is on the real internet and gets an absurd amount of hits. http://maddox.xmission.com/statistics/statistics.html Mujarimojo 23:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, she does. Tabor 00:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Random internet fool pasting his blog into this article

Your attention please.

User:190.10.4.55 is spamming this article with a rant that appears to be centered around a fake tattoo. While I admire his capacity for picking the difficult subjects in life, I don't feel like running into 3RR.

WAKE UP. REVERT. THIS MEANS YOU.

Yeago 00:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just report it to the 3RR noticeboard if you fear getting slapped with a 3RR block. Hbdragon88 03:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A Couple of Noticable Problems.

There are a few problems with this article that I noticed the first time I read it. (Also I am new to this so bear with me please!)

This article still has a slight POV towards Maddox. Their is no mention of the hate mail he gets or the numerous websites that are against him as well and his 'hatefullness'.

Also I think their should be a consistancy on what he is referred to. Either call him by his real name or Maddox. Not both. Expecially both in the same section. --Angela 17:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Check "Controversy" at The Best Page in the Universe. BabuBhatt 21:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think quoting from his own website wouldnt be that great of an idea. Are there any other websites stating controversy for/with Maddox. (At work... cant really look up that sort of thing right now)--Angela 20:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is titled Maddox. His real name should only be used in the intro paragraph IMO. Hbdragon88 05:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Pointless trivia

The trivia section reeks of fandom. Seriously, who cares what music, movies, comedians, food and video games he likes? Wikipedia isn't some gossip magazine. I'm removing those pointless sections. 81.58.34.171 10:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You go girl! 04:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC) M

Isn't the point of trivia that it's trivial knowledge that has no real purpose? Toxic Ninja 04:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No the point of trivia is random knowledge with some point (i.e. he was on this TV show, he was referenced in this cartoon) Removing music/movie/food tastes seems appropriate.--Erik the guy (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Best Comic in The Universe

Woulden't it be more proper if the plot was included?, unfortunately i havent got on my hands that comic so i can't put it myself. --190.40.184.147 02:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What

This is the page on the author, not the comic. It wouldn't make much sense to put the plot of the comic here. Toxic Ninja 05:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Occupation

Lumberjack? Pirate? is this an encyclopedia article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.181.194.88 (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia was an encyclopedia last time I checked, so you're correct. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 07:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

WP Biography Rating

Due to a backlog it is no longer possible to give comment on ratings. Please put any comments/questions on my talk page. GDon4t0 20:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable Views

Some wiki administrators apparently consider Maddox's views on the Goth subculture "notable". I personally believe they aren't, because Madox sarcastically purports to hate many people and many groups, or love them, goths just being one of those. However in order to maintain cohesiveness, both pages now reference one another indicating Maddox's views. They are fully sourced. If any normal editors here think this view is not a notable view please go to the goth subculture talk page and add something to the debate. thank youTheDarknessVisible 19:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on goth culture, but I think his views fit perfectly in the criticism section. He is criticizing the goth subculture, and he is notable. What else do you want? Just because someone makes a lot of his opinions known does not mean none of his opinions matter. Rm999 02:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

so you are another voice in support of keeping maddox's anti-goth views. I don't want to have a redundant argument here. its the same issue in both places. this should go to goth culture since there are like 4 or 5 people involved in the issue there. although I'll say.. no one has done anything as a result of these views. I think he pissed off a few of his teenage goth fans. They'll get over it. other than that it didn't matter. no one died. no one lost $5 on it. nothing happened. .. life went on.. my argument is that although his views may matter (just like anyone elses) nothing happened. he didn't even get sued. I'm sure one of these days someone will take him to court. That would be more notable (headline: "Dipshit Celebrity Gets Sued"). but.. I'm just one voice in a voice of many. I guess the mere fact that so many WANT it to be noted is an argument that it is notable. If it must be reported at least let it be done with NPOV.TheDarknessVisible 04:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing this section because it does not qualify as WP:Notable, specifically:

"Independence" excludes works affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

Maddox is a satirical writer, not everything he writes can be taken as his own viewpoint. Thus his "conclusions" may not be what he actually thinks of the subject at all. If we had a section on every 'notable' viewpoint he has then we would end up having a section for every single article on his website. This is not notable to warrant a section or even a mention in the article unless we can get better 3rd party verifiable references. --Dr. WTF 19:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You misinterpretted: "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article-content

These and all the notability guidelines are for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within a legitimate Wikipedia article. That is, not all material included in an article must, in itself, meet these criteria. For issues of article content, see especially the guidelines on reliable sources and trivia. Note also, though, that other Wikipedia guidelines refer in places to "notability", meaning notability as defined by the notability guidelines. " Meaning, the only question is whether maddox is notable. The reader can follow the link to determine if he is being serious. All the pro and con arguments are have already been made. This "view" would only need to be notable if it was the subject of an entire wiki article on its own. In any event please feel free to join in the actual debate on this issue. I dirrect you to the discussion pages on goth subculture. thanks. And for the record I agree with you. I don't believe this view is worthy of wiki. but no one has brought a legitimate argument to exclude it. TheDarknessVisible 16:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't read the whole notability page. I had only read that one part. Now that I am reading a bit more into wikipedia policies I see that the statement, "Maddox is noted for his criticism of the Goth subculture", is unsourced. According to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced". Also "...the three-revert rule does not apply". On this basis I am removing this part of the article again, if anyone can cite this statement then please add it back, until then it shouldn't be found on this article. --Dr. WTF 19:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

you only have an argument against the specific wording of a single sentence "Maddox is noted for his criticism of the Goth subculture". It could just as easily be said that "Maddox is a critic of the Goth subculture". it is not an argument for excluding the entire paragraph which did properly report his statements. With that said, I favor exclusion. And as long as consensus is to leave it out of goth subculture then I see no reason to put it here. Alternatively if the consensus is to include it there, then the same argument applies to including it here. I see no specific wiki guideline or policy on how to treat this kind of "view" of a celebrity. I would love if someone found one. I have no objection to your reversion here, since you've done the same thing on the other page to trigger the debate again, like I requested. I dont see why the 3 revert rule doesn't apply however, but far as I'm concerned I would not have reverted your reversion here, if you had already done what you did to goth subculture in the first place; and I would have reverted myself had you asked me (after you made the edit on the other page). On that basis I'm willing to treat your revert of my edit as if you convinced me to revert myself. I'll put that in writing here for what thats worth.TheDarknessVisible 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire section was based off the assertion that his views on goths are notable, it was even under the title "Notable Views". If the section was reworded to say "Maddox is a critic of the Goth subculture" it would still be uncited, since the actual beliefs and thoughts of satirical writers are open to speculation. Having that whole section about goths was also pretty POV, it gave undue weight to his belief on goths (no citation that it was really any more notable than others). --Dr. WTF 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Year of birth

Can someone provide a source for his year of birth? --Victor 08:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

His YouTube account is somewhat helpful. But I'm pretty sure that doesn't qualify as a source. Kip the Dip 11:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Main use

Can we please make Maddox redirect to this article? Then "For other uses, ..." 83.67.217.254 00:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Hopefully acceptable username 06:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Maddox was redirecting to this article anyway, I've moved this article into the Maddox slot. Now there's no practical difference, but we have one fewer redirect, so it's cleaner. —Cleared as filed. 22:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Peak of his Writing?

In the article it says that the peak was 2004-2005, but that's not true. The peak is 2002-2003 where he had at least two-three articles every month except for August. 68.238.249.130

Is Maddox a Mormon?

Is Maddox a Mormon? William Ortiz 18:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Nobody cares about Maddox anymore. Poor madix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arisedrink (talk • contribs) 04:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well you seem to care about him if you're here reading about him. You should read in the article what the one true spelling of his alias is. pjh3000 (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'm probably the only one left, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arisedrink (talk • contribs) 11:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1