Talk:Rogers Cadenhead

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

rcade (talk · contribs) / Cadenhead, Rogers Cadenhead, Rogers

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 August 2005. The result of the discussion was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

External links

I removed these external links because they are not about the subject, they are just tangents. Rottentomatoes would only be relevant if this article talked about Cadenhead's movie critic career, and the second link has a quote 2/3rds of the way through the article and that's it.

Rotten Tomatoes - Film reviews by Cadenhead
[www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediagoogleisraelleyden5580110.html]

--Quasipalm 15:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, we have something to talk about :). Ok, I'll give you israelnewsagency (at least until I write something that references it directly), but Rotten Tomatoes makes a great external link, because you can see the movie reviews written by Cadenhead himself. Surely material that is straight from the horse's mouth is very rich in information, if I was looking for information on Cadenhead, reading some of his movie reviews, would be most enlightening.--M4bwav 15:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great edits btw. To be honest, including or not including the Rotten Tomatoes link is pretty minor stuff (although it is a fairly well known site). Israel News Agency is mostly just one determined guy who puffs himself up really big, its not really notable except in the eyes of INA. --Ben Houston 15:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your just saying that because you hate Israel, jk. Anyway I found the movie reviews interesting, unless anyone objects, I'm going to return them.--M4bwav 16:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, although I still hold that it's irrelevant. To me, if I look up Gene Siskel I expect to see movie reviews. If I look up Rob Glaser, I don't. That is all. :-) --Quasipalm 18:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the workbench link thing, I figured that when you site a page on a website, you also site the website in which it belongs to for instance: * profile of Feith on Sourcewatch

or * All Roads Lead to Feith by Jim Lobe, Antiwar.com, November 6, 2003

or * Dickerson, John (Nov. 8, 2005). "Don't Fire Karl". Slate.

I'm not saying I know which is the correct way to reference an article, in fact I'm asking. I think people should know that it comes from it is present from Cadenhead's workbench site. I won't change it, though, I think I've already pushed to hard on (to dominate) consensus--M4bwav 19:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The main issue with the link is that it was a wikilink to workbench which is confusing since the article workbench has nothing to do with Cadenhead. Add some text that explains that the link is to a page maintained by Cadenhead would probably be best. --Ben Houston 21:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

When this article was up for deletion, one of the reasons it was deceided to keep it was that Cadenhead was notable because he was on the RSS Advisory Board. However, this article has still not been created -- if Cadenhead is notable for being on this board, shouldn't the board be notable enough for it's own article? If someone wants to put that article together, that'd be great. --Quasipalm 15:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vote for deletion on Roger's biographic article was somewhat incestuous with friends of Cadenhead voting keep without mentioning their personal relationships with him (i.e. see Betsy Devine.) RSS Advisory Board hasn't done anything yet. To be honest, it is a politically-motivated organization that is intended to maintain the centrality of Dave Winer with regards to web feeds (i.e. Atom and RSS) at the expense of natural standard evolution (i.e. Atom sucks because it is not RSS -- which is to say Atom sucks because it was not "invented" by Dave Winer). I could go on, but I'll hold my tongue... all I can say is that the internet is filled with "interesting" personalities who put significant effort into the tactical construction of consensual realities. These tactical constructions of consensual reality often do gain the constructors significant long-term benefits though -- that is not an accident and thus suggests there is something that can be learned from all this strangeness. --Ben Houston 22:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's crazy, how did you piece that one together. Anyway, I think Cadenhead is involved in more than enough prominent activities that at least something should be written about him.--M4bwav 22:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're right -- I take back my statements with regards to the advisory board. There were some really funky things with regards to Dave Winer, RSS and Atom though -- I mistakenly assumed this was a continuation of that. That said, I'm never said that Rogers Cadenhead or Dave Winer shouldn't be in wikipedia or even the RSS Advisory Board. I guess I am untrustworthy of anything that appears to be part of that political battle. --Ben Houston 00:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a battle, I definitely do not want to be involved with.--M4bwav 01:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Ben's scrutiny of my contributions to Wikipedia -- especially this page -- but I have to correct something: None of the people who voted in my bio's AfD debate is a friend, colleague, or anything close. I had heard of Betsy Devine and Jessamyn West because of their web sites, but we had never exchanged as much as an e-mail until after that debate. Regarding the RSS board, the perception that it's a continuation of long-running arguments regarding RSS and Atom is -- I hope -- inaccurate. I'm a fan of RSS 1.0 and Atom. I encourage anyone curious about the board to visit [1] and check out the charter and member bios. Rcade 01:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record whoever invented the atom feed should probably die, I had to program a parser for at work, pain the ass, RSS 1.0 and 2.0 are cool though. BTW throw picture of yourself on there already, or give it to me and I'll do it, people can already see your face from your blog, what's big deal. --M4bwav 01:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll send you a current photo -- thanks for asking. All the ones on the web are too small for Wikipedia or stuff like [2]. Rcade 02:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool dude, keep bustin ass on that RSS feed stuff.--M4bwav 02:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link to my website (isolani.co.uk) from this article. Its a rant about how Atom is (not) being portrayed in the public light. As a reference to Rogers, its certainly not up to scratch, and I'd much rather Wikipedia not link to it as a reference for Rogers Cadenhead. Isoferro 21:35, 21 May 2006.

buzzword.com hosting

When Dave Winer shut down weblogs.com, Cadenhead was to host all the stuff from weblogs.com at [mysite].buzzword.com (for example). Did he give up? Did everybody move off Manila altogether? If you want Manila hosting, do you have to pay for it now? --81.105.251.160 01:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Manila hosting on Buzzword.Com ended this spring. Read that link on my blog for the details. Rcade 14:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art Bell

Under the Legal Actions heading is a mention that Art Bell has threatened Cadenhead with a lawsuit but, isn't actually suing him at this time. My question is - why is this being mentioned at all then? If I threaten George Clooney with a lawsuit but never sue him, would I deserve a mention on his WIkipedia page? A lot of people threaten to sue a lot of other people but never do. Bourne 18:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Cadenhead published the e-mail, and because Bell is a public indnvidual. This is different from a private person being sued for a car accident. These are public people, complaining about a public weblog. Calwatch 20:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The mere threat of a lawsuit doesn't seem to clear the bar for me (almost seems to qualify as Crystal Balling|WP:NOT#CBALL in that it's not a lawsuit yet: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."), but if others think it does... so be it. But for the record...

A Million LIttle Pieces author James Frey threatened to sue The Smoking Gun - this is not on either Wikipedia entry.
Fox News threatened to sue The Simpsons over an unflattering parody of the channel - this is not on either Wikipedia entry.
To try to keep What's New, Tiger Lily from being released, Woody Allen threatened to sue the film's producers - this is not on the Wikipedia entry.
Starbucks threatened to sue Mike Judge/20th Century Fox over the company's negative portrayal in the film Idiocracy - not mentioned on the movie's Wikipedia entry.

In each case, the two parties are much more notable than Art Bell and Rogers Cadenhead and the threatened lawsuits received more press than that of The Former AM Radio Host vs. The Florida "Popesquatter". Bourne 02:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolution for March 1987

I found this article looking to see if he really did request absolution for a date in 1987. I added the reference to his blog where he made his demands.

From the first reference I used, it didn't sound like he donated the site to modestneeds.org, but was just redirecting traffic there. I just checked the whois information and he did give ownership of the domain to modestneeds.org, but he is still listed as the administrative and technical contact for the domain. I thought his quote asking for absolution was more of a joke with the media.

Cruel Site of the Day

. . . is no more. Cadenhead took it offline sometime in mid-October. The cruel.com link redirects to the drudge retort site. The members of the message board have migrated to a new site. Xdenizen 07:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Sure Cadenhead believes Wales co-founded wikipedia and we can put that. What we cannot do is put this person's opinion as fact, this is a gross breach of WP:NPOV. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Definition of Parody

I find hilarious the section that begins "Some people might not notice a difference between the two Web pages. The typography and page layouts are almost identical..." The Drudge Retort is a parody. The point of a parody is to imitate and then caricaturize the original. Perhaps on the MacGruber page it should say "Some people might not notice a difference between MacGruber and Macguyver -- the mullets are almost identical..." Bourne 17:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bourne (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rogers Cadenhead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100512145006/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/archives/gossip/1998/08/31/1998-08-31_parody_relieves_the_drudgery.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/1998/08/31/1998-08-31_parody_relieves_the_drudgery.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rogers Cadenhead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100512145006/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/archives/gossip/1998/08/31/1998-08-31_parody_relieves_the_drudgery.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/1998/08/31/1998-08-31_parody_relieves_the_drudgery.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]