Jump to content

Talk:GNAA (disambiguation)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Alphabetical order

There is no order to the list. The only natural way to order it is in alphabetical order. Reverting it is illogical.

GNAA Discussion Page

"GNAA (Slashdot)" exists, so the disambiguation must be here. If you don't like GNAA (Slashdot) discuss it on Talk:GNAA_(Slashdot) GoGi

Please read this. GoGi
No it doesn't exist. Vivaldi (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral disambiguation

As of this writing, there exist two organizations known under the acronym GNAA -- the Global Network of Arab Activists and the Gay Nigger Association of America, respectively. This page—the GNAA page— was (at the time of me originally writing this) a redirect to Global Network of Arab Activists and that article had a link to the Gay Nigger Association of America at its top.

I have boldly changed this page to a pure disambiguation page.

I recognize that there a lot of editing to and fro has already occurred and that this is a contentious issue. However, I offer the following reasons for my initiative:

  1. Automatically redirecting to one of the two articles (with the other only being granted a link while the user already is on the "competing" article page) is likely to result in further disagreement over which organization is more important and which of the two respective articles the GNAA page should redirect to. A neutral disambiguation page avoids a contest over this.
  2. Without being familiar with Islam's attitude towards homosexuality and/or Internet trolling, and without being familiar with the Gay Nigger AA's attitude towards Arab culture, I do strongly suspect that the two organizations are very far apart. The Global Network of Arab Activists would probably not appreciate seeing their article adorned with a prominent link to the Gay Nigger Association of America. Likewise, the Gay Nigger Association of America may possibly not want to see their activities considered Arab activism (admittedly, being a troll organization, they might also find this amusing).
  3. "GNAA" is just an acronym. It is appropriate that the pure acronym page should be a redirect and the respective articles should remain logged under more detailed names.
  4. Looking at other cases where there are multiple definitions for an acronym, it would also certainly appear to me that is is Wikipedia convention to handle such issues this way.
  5. Only in cases where one acronym expansion is ubiquituously known and other definitions are not is there precedent for redirecting directly to an article and having a neutral statement of "For other meanings, see XYZ (disambiguation)" at the top.
  6. Neither of the two definitions in this case are truly ubiquituously known.

For these reasons, I made this page a neutral redirect page.

The order of listing both options was alphabetical (but someone has changed that since, which I don't consider an issue with only two options).

I am aware that the "GNAA (Slashdot)" page remains orphaned under this solution -- it was however orphaned before, so nothing changes in that respect.

If you think things should be changed again despite the above reasons, then please use the Talk page and give people a realistic chance to reply before making further changes. Thank you.

Ropers 02:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

PS: And yes, I have seen the "Gay Niggers from Outer Space" film -- a not unfunny member of the "so bad, it's good" movie category. I'm just saying.

Global Network of Arab Activists

Since this page lost VfD a few days ago, we should probably get rid of the red link before someone recreates the page. Forget it, I only posted this because the page was protected, but now it's unprotected and Silsor added several more expansions. If people want all those articles, I don't object. I'm relatively new here, so I don't want to be the one to start the next edit war or VfD controversy over this acronym.

Dave6 04:20, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why did my order change get removed? It looks like you're trying to put Gay Nigger Association of America at the bottom in all your edits.

You could go off on me, or you could actually look at the page history. silsor 00:37, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
I fail to see how asking you to provide justification for your edits is 'going off' on you. I don't see why one entry should always float to the bottom, unless you're trying to hide it or some such.
Is it really that much trouble to look at the page history like I asked? In this edit, an anonymous contributor moved the article to the bottom of the list. I moved it back to near the top.
Anonymous users seem a little fishy after taking such an unusual interest in this page (a favourite target of vandals and trolls) that they want to put it in "alphabetical order" - which coincidentally is the same as listing the Gay Nigger Association of America first. silsor 22:13, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
If you have any other suggestions as to order that doesn't put one entry (somewhat unfairly) towards the end, i'd love to hear them.
Lists generally have a beginning and an end. Am I missing something? silsor 01:12, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Stop evading. Please to answer my question.
You're crazy if you're expecting an answer to a nonsensical question. "Please suggest an order for this list that does not have an ending" indeed. silsor 16:23, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I don't understand the hassle over putting it in an order like everything else. I think you should stop being so anal and become a little more logical. Alphabetical order is completely appropriate for this list. --SpinelessCommie 16:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
THANK YOU. wtf was silsor's (more like silswhore) problem?
Silsor was confused because when you use parentheses in a sentence, that sentence should make sense without the words in parentheses. He was reading it as "suggest an order that doesn't put an entry at the end" rather than "suggest and order that doesn't single out an entry to be shunted to the bottom of the list for no reason" 98.197.98.204 19:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
In this previous edit I changed the ordering using Google popularity. I don't know why the order changed again, though. It seemed a pretty reasonable solution to me, what do you think? Sam Hocevar 13:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

doubtful additions

We removed Greater Nashville Auburn Association and Global Network of Arab Activists from the list a few months ago, because there were no articles about them. This is why I also removed the recent addition of Gamma neutron activation analysis and Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica because there was no article about them. I also suspect, while still assuming the utmost good faith from Brian0918 (of course), that this edit's unexpected side effect might have been to remove the trolling organisation from the first position in the list. Brian, I find it quite surprising that you found about the Gamma neutron activation analysis (Google hits for +gnaa +"Gamma neutron activation analysis": exactly one page) but did not find it useful to clutter the disambiguation page again with Greater Nashville Auburn Association and Global Network of Arab Activists. They are probably a hundred time more relevant.

While I definitely enjoy the ever growing imagination of people who will fight to the death until Gay Nigger Association of America is no longer the first entry in the list, I am hoping we could agree that the amount of Google hits give a reasonable guess of what the reader expects to see first when looking for "GNAA" (or presumably any other ambiguous name) in a search engine. Sam Hocevar 18:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Note my comment in the previous topic. If it is so important a subject, why did no one answer to me? Sam Hocevar 18:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I've created Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica. Let's see if you will still hold true to the alphabetical order so fully supported on this talk page. Please realize that Google is only one test of notability. This national gallery is obviously more notable than the gnaa. Don't even bother arguing it. As for Gamma neutron activation analysis, you may want to check who wrote the article on mixed waste. On a side note, I'm not trying to destroy the gnaa article, I fully supported it in its FAC attempted, and battled with several of the opposers. Thanks for the subtle personal attacks, though, I'll add them to the collection. :)  BRIAN0918  18:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain who refers to the Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica as GNAA? I honestly think you are just inventing meanings. In fact, I cannot even find any reference to GNAA on the official website, let alone a website on the whole Internet that uses the acronym GNAA in a sentence (I must admit I could find a massive amount of 3 URLs using the acronym, though, which is more than 2 more than I initially expected).
As for the alphabetical order so fully supported on this talk page, I invite you to read the page again and realise that I have never been a great supporter of it, preferring the Google page count. For ages. And please explain how likely it is that someone looks for "GNAA" because they came across that acronym which was referring to the Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica, compared to the troll organisation or the Greater Nashville Auburn Association. Of course I will happily acknowledge that Google is (of course) not the only test of notability, and if you can provide a test that you think works well, please do, and we will see how me might combine both to get the best result.
I have also never stated that you were trying to destroy the GNAA article that you supported in FAC. Please excuse my approximate language skills in case I might have written something that could remotely look like I said that. And if challenging the validity of changes represents personal attacks, maybe you should consider not changing the ordering of a list that states "by alphabetical order", for instance, or your collection will obviously grow bigger. Sam Hocevar 22:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[1]. It's a world famous national gallery in Rome that was built for a Pope and houses artwork by Raphael among others. Regardless of your opinion of the proper order, this talk page prefers alphabetical order. If you prefer notability, the national gallery is obviously more notable than a group of internet trolls (even on Google, "Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica" gets 10x the hits of "Gay Nigger Association"). Only about 1/6 of the world has an internet connection, and only a small fraction of them have heard of the Gay Nigger Association of America; nobody else has heard of the group, so don't even bother arguing notability. There is a big wide world outside virtual internet forums and chat rooms, regardless of whether you would like to admit it or not. -- BRIAN0918  22:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Brian0918, if this is not a bad faith edit, do you also support making SF link to "Sagrada Familia", P to "Parthenon" and so on, for every building that has an article on wikipedia? You will agree that those two are certainly more notable than the gallery in question. It obviously isn't regularly reffered to as "the GNAA" so I doubt your motivation here. I don't dispute the notability of the gallery, I just don't think every single article on wikipedia should be linked to by its acronym. Pigger 22:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not for organizing by notability, I'm for organizing alphabetically, as has been the norm with all other things on Wikipedia. -- BRIAN0918  22:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Did you even read what I wrote? To make it clear, I don't think "GNAA" should link to the gallery at all, and I consider what you are doing to be in bad faith, because I didn't notice that notable buildings (like my examples) are linked to from their acronyms on wikipedia. Unlike the Gay Nigger Association of America, the gallery obviously isn't regularly reffered to as "the GNAA", so it has nothing to do with the acronym, apart from the fact that the first letters of the words match, but that is not reason enough to link it, or every article on wikipedia would be linked to from its acronym's page. Pigger 22:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
See, your examples are what we call a straw man fallacy. Unlike the national gallery, of which there are at least 30 Google hits using the acronym, I doubt there are any hits showing P stands for Parthenon (and if there are, that's fine with me; that's exactly what disambiguation pages are for). You cannot deny that GNAA can refer to Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica, so, given that this disambiguation page states "GNAA can refer to (in alphabetic order):", it is only natural that this gallery not only be included, but be placed at the beginning. Given the tone of your comments and your quickness to calling my work "bad faith" (including my creating an article on a very notable subject), I shall also move to consider your motives to be in "bad faith". -- BRIAN0918  22:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, you are wrong, that would be an example of a false analogy, not a straw man fallacy. This is a straw man falacy. Always willing to educate - Pigger <3
Ahh yes, my bad. -- BRIAN0918  22:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
How can you find 30 Google hits using the acronym, while I can only find 2 pages using both "Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica" and "GNAA" (to which I would agree to add two other pages where "gnaa" is used as part of a filename)? Also, it seems you were quick to call false analogy on the P/Parthenon example, but in your hurry you forgot to refute the SF/Sagrada Familia example. See for instance how http://www.manyanet.org/ or http://www.travelblog.org/Europe/Spain/Barcelona/blog-8570.html where S.F. or SF is clearly used to mean Sagrada Familia. Don't hesitate to enlighten us! Sam Hocevar 17:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Since when has organising alphabetically become a norm? We have always been organising by relevance, AFAIK. In fact, I am struggling to find an acronym disambiguation page that is purposedly sorted alphabetically (my random tries were FFF, IRL, BSD, TLA, WTF, XXX...) Sam Hocevar 16:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed Gamma neutron activation analysis from the list. As anyone can see for himself, the most common of these techniques are known as PGNAA (P standing for pulsed or prompt), DGNAA or LS-DGNAA (D standing for delayed) but I could find no reference to this family of methods referred to as GNAA.

Brian0918, it is now the second time you claim there are more than 30 Google hits for the gallery and the GNAA acronym (once above in this discussion, and once in your latest edit to the page where the figure was no longer 30 but 100). I still can only find 4 such pages. Also, you are refusing to discuss with that anonymous user on the grounds that he'll never listen to you, but you still haven't explained where on Google you found 100 pages using GNAA for the gallery. Sam Hocevar 17:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I didn't remember the figure so I just did a google search for GNAA and Gallery or Galleria or something. This says 37. As I've repeatedly said, Google is only useful in certain instances (eg if you're comparing two online things). The gallery is obviously more notable than the gnaa, and plenty of notable Italian gallery sites use "GNAA" as an abbreviation for the gallery. You do realize that the anonymous user is a member of the GNAA, right? His website is commonly linked to in gnaa IRC channels. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-13 17:47
I am sorry, on my computer, this says 15, not 37. Let us have a look at a few of them:
Which leaves us with at most 6 remotely relevant pages. How are you going to convince anyone that this should be 100 or even 37? Sam Hocevar 18:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, you are endlessly mixing the concepts of "X being notable", and of "the use of GNAA as referring to X being widespread" (which should definitely be the main disambiguation criterion, but no one ever answered my requests for comments about this ordering). Sam Hocevar 17:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, I think it is you who are confusing what this article says, as well as what people on the talk page say. The article says "GNAA can refer to (in alphabetical order)", and indeed "GNAA" is used by notable Italian gallery sites to refer to this gallery (as well as countless unknown print media), and indeed "Galleria" does come before "Gay" alphabetically. I'm simply following the wishes of those on the talk page, as well as the wording used in the article. You are trying to go against all of this, as if people looking for "Gay Nigger Association of America" would have a difficult time finding the 2nd item on the list. Stop wasting my time. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-13 17:47
I am not discussing what the article says. I am discussing what it should say, hence my numerous attempts at proposing ordering by relevance. It is not because I do not change the article that I agree with what's in it (and it seems I do well by not changing it, because you keep reverting the edit in favour of which I am arguing, ignoring 3RR, and also blocking the editor). But in the end, I feel like it's hopeless discussing on the talk page since I get constantly ignored. You cannot say "I follow what the article says" (ie. alphabetical order) if it's what we are arguing about. Sam Hocevar 18:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Also, I hope you are well aware that "countless unknown print media" cannot be considered a valid source of information. In fact, being unknown, I doubt they can be considered anything at all. Sam Hocevar 19:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

GNAA can refer to edit war

Evidence: http://www.bayou.com/~woodland/gnaa.html Evidence: Over 500 matches for a google search of "gnaa" and "edit war" (http://www.google.com/search?q=gnaa+edit+war)

This evidence is at least as good as what User:Brian0918 presented to justify the addition of Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica; so if it goes from the list, then Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica must also go, logically.


Summary of my remarks to Brian0918

Brian, I am sorry if my comments and questions are a bit mixed everywhere. I will try to make it easier for you to answer (and maybe less aggressive, sorry if the tone seemed a bit heated).

  • About the use of the alphabetical order:
    • This is not, and has never been, "common Wikipedia practice". See for instance FFF, IRL, BSD, TLA, WTF, XXX, RSS. In fact, I am tired of browsing Category:Three-letter acronym disambiguations to find a single article that is alpha-sorted (there may well be a few, but they would obviously be the exception, or even have happened by sheer luck).
    • There is no "alphabetical order so fully supported on this talk page". For instance, silsor and I, though we disagree on which entry should come first, are in favour of sorting by relevance. Other article contributors who have not contributed to the talk page, such as Natalinasmpf, seem to support this point of view, too.
    • You seemed to be in favour of ordering by relevance, too, judging by your first edit on this article.

Do you disagree with the above statements, and if so, can you please tell me how? Sam Hocevar 20:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I see the fact that the GNAM is shown on Google to be frequently abbreviated GNAM as evidence that the GNA Antica is frequently abbreviated GNAA as well, whether or not it is indexed on Google.
Oh dear. And you were the one talking about fallacies? The GNAM is used in many places as a reference to the gallery, there does not seem to be a single sentence on the Internet using GNAA as a reference to the other gallery, and you claim that it is proof that GNAA is actually used to mean that? Please explain the logic behind this.
  • You don't? There's no difference between these galleries or their huge worldwide popularity. It just so happens that on the internets, GNAM gets more hits.
We are not talking about more hits, we are talking about hundreds of hits versus no hits at all. One could argue about anything that has no Internet coverage using that it just happens it gets more hits logic.
  • But, in case you didn't realize, there are other forms of print media besides the digital.
Sure, I will be very glad to hear about the Italian print media that talk about la GNAA.
  • Using an internet search engine to compare something highly popular that has no internet presence with something that is only slightly notable (as seen by all the VFDs) on the internet itself is not a good comparison. As for no references to the Galleria as GNAA, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. I really don't care whether or not you accept any of these as valid, because I think you're choosing not to accept them by definition. I think it's pretty ridiculous that you're still debating whether the Gallery is abbreviated GNAA, and that you're supporting/defending known members of an internet troll group. Whether we sort alphabetically or by notability, the Gallery will still easily be on top. You're choosing to redefine words and sophisticate to get your way, and it got old a long time ago. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-14 16:42
Links 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 only mention GNAA because they use the title of the page in link 3. Link 15 does not even mention GNAA. Which leaves us with 7 rather valid pages, though none of them uses GNAA in a sentence. May I interpret this as an approval by you of my second remark, then?
Also, I find it quite insulting that you accuse me of redefining words when at the same time you try to give the acronym GNAA a meaning that it does not have. I have done a very thorough search of specialised art sites, even places not reachable by Google (such as http://www.artcyclopedia.com/scripts/tsearch.pl?t=gnaa&type=3) and I have found no evidence of what you are claiming. Until you have found such evidence, you know what it is? Original research, that's all.
By the way, does anyone here support your point of view? Because the few people taking part in the discussion were supporting mine (before you blocked them, of course). Sam Hocevar 17:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for not answering my question in bold. That's why I put it in bold; that means "ignore this question". — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-14 17:34
Thanks for ignoring the fact that I asked "Please explain the logic behind this." before I can answer your question. If I don’t understand your logic, I cannot tell you whether I agree with it or not. But if you want a temporary answer until you clarify: no, I don’t think I do. Cheers, Sam Hocevar 17:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
You agree that the modern art gallery is known to be abbreviated GNAM. You refuse to believe that the ancient art gallery is known to be abbreviated GNAA. I've given you numerous examples which you've chosen to toss out. You won't acknowledge that there exist other print media outside your interweb. You can't be helped. This debate is pointless. I'm done wasting time with your blatant sophistry. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-14 17:46
I agree that the modern art gallery is known to be abbreviated GNAM because I have seen hundreds of sentences in Italian talking about "la GNAM" to refer to it. And of course, having seen exactly zero of such sentences using "la GNAA", I refuse to believe the same for the ancient art gallery. The "numerous" examples you talk about amount to about seven pages (none of them using the abbreviation in a sentence). And nowhere did I refuse to acknowledge that there exist other print media, but unfortunately for this to have any meaning maybe you could cite a few of them that talk about "la GNAA". Otherwise, the only thing I can do to counter this non-argument is by using another non-argument, such as the numerous print media that say that you are wrong. By the way, if you put brackets around the word sophistry it becomes a link, and you can click on it to learn how it massively applies to your reasoning. Sam Hocevar 18:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Why are you supporting people who vandalized my user page, made personal attacks, sent me threatening emails, and/or have identified themselves as members of the gnaa? Or are you choosing to ignore this fact so you can say they "supported your view" and were "unjustly" blocked by me? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-14 17:39
I am not supporting any people (implying this is not far from a personal attack I prefer to ignore) and definitely not their vandal actions. I am supporting my views of what the article should look like. And for the record, I have never stated that the blocks were "unjust"; I said that you, being personally involved in an edit war and making dubious claims of vandalism, shouldn’t have done the block, and should have rather asked for a third party to do it. Sam Hocevar 18:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about, can you please show me where I vandalized your user page or sent you threatening e-mails? Also, I would appreciate you showing me a wikipedia policy page that states being in the GNAA is a reason to be blocked. I also wonder why you didn't even respond to my e-mail (in which I absolutely didn't threaten you) or leave a comment on my talk page. Piggest (pigger)

I am protecting this page until users have resolved these disputes. Please do not engage in revert warring. ⟳ausa کui ×18:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Brian0918 refuses to give any logical reasoning behind his edits, so I feel that any attempt at resolving this dispute here is severely flawed. People have already tried (see above) to no avail. 84.12.199.138 18:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I suspect that a lot of the people who keep reverting to add articles are simply trying to divert attention from the infamous Gay Nigger Association of America article, which they find distasteful for some reason. --Jacj 16:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
And you'd be wrong. I fully supported the GNAA article becoming a featured article. Learn your facts before making accusations. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-20 21:14

Protection status

It's been almost a month since the page was protected. Maybe we should at least attempt to resolve the issues, so let's start humbly: please make your case for why the disambiguation change should use this or that criteria when sorting and also deciding what is worthy of inclusion and what isn't. As it is, I'm still pondering. --claviola (talk to me) 17:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the following issues should be decided upon.

  • Should GNAA be a disambiguation page?
  • If not, then what?
  • If yes, then:
    • What should be included?
    • What popularity style should be used to define whether it should be included (ie: Google, PR, general usage)?
    • What order should it be sorted in?

I, for one, think that GNAA should be a disambiguation page, listed in alphabetical order. Alphabetical order is the only order that makes sense in this case. Why list by popularity? Who is Google to decide (ie: There are other search engines in existance people...)? Perhaps it's just me, but who cares if the Gay Nigger Association of America is listed first? If it happens to be the first alphabetically, and the page is listed as such, 99.99% of people won't complain. Just because it's a trolling organization, offensive, and looked down upon by most internet-aware people is no reason to lower it's status. In my opinion, that's rather being biased and POV. ^demon, 14:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I supported the gnaa article's FAC and defended it thoroughly, but I also am trying to put the Gallery at the top because it comes first alphabetically and it is verifiable that the gallery has been abbreviated as GNAA. Unfortunately, I was in a losing battle against members and friends of the gnaa, who want their name at the top and claim I'm against the gnaa, despite my support of their article. I'm not against them, I'm against the idea that Google should be used as a barometer of notability, especially when we're talking about the world famous GNAA (National Gallery of Ancient Art), which these people deny being abbreviated as such, while they don't deny that the GNAM (National Gallery of Modern Art) is abbreviated as such, based solely on Google notability. This whole debate is utterly ridiculous. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-14 04:44
    • Brian, you and User:Silsor should just give up. In Italy we don't use acronyms as much as english people do, so please stop being so jerky. Also in italian "gnam" is an onomatopoeic word that means "I'm hungry" and "gnaa" is the the same for "I'm a moron". When I was a child I used to shout "gnaa gnaa gnaa" to mimic people with disabilities. These two acronyms are quite never used in Italy to reference any art galleries because they sound stupid. - Femmina 21:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica

The ONLY place the Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica is referred to as GNAA is in fact on wikipedia and its clones. so, logically, it should be removed from the disambiguation page.

  • Your statement is incorrect, as has been thoroughly discussed and shown before. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-12-12 17:38Z

Including links

Ok, I see alot of anon's and even user's adding this link to the article. Please come here and discuss it first.

That page is deleted, and protected from recreation. Unless the DRV decides to overturn the result of the AfD then the link should not be here as the group has been found not to be verifiably notable.

If you disgree, talk here but do not simply post the link over and over. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB#Redlinks is pretty clear on this. "Links to non-existent articles ('redlinks') may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject." Since the article has been AfD'd, one can no longer be confident that an encyclopedia article will be written on the subject. Leaving it in but removing the link also isn't a possibility becase "disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles". Disambiguation pages are never used for free-form listing of abbreviations. Wiktionary sometimes is, but only if it's a very frequently used abbreviation. --Interiot 21:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how much this has been hashed out before...

But would this be appropraite:

? Just as a experienced Internet "user", I find it strange that no mention is made. 68.39.174.238 00:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that ought to be there. Unfortunately there has been a massive backlash against GNAA that is clouding a lot of wikipedia editors ability to see clearly on this issue of GNAA's inclusion in wikipedia. (yes I do realise this is just my point of view (and a zillion others), don't go bashing me over the head for it!) Mathmo Talk 09:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Though I in no way support a GNAA article, and was very glad to see it deleted (not because of the group's actions, but because the group was non-notable and zero reliable sources were presented), I am somewhat supportive of the inclusion of a simple mention of the organization in this dab. I think I could live with a one-line mention, perhaps linking to Troll (Internet) as suggested above. -- Kicking222 21:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Disambiguation is only for items that can possibly be articles. The fact that this article was AFD'd makes it unlikely that it can be an article. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-08 00:32Z
Once deleted, many times NOT deleted. A far better indication that an article could exist one day. Your argument only applies if an article has never survived an AfD. Mathmo Talk 11:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It previously survived AfD with No Consensus, not with Keep. Your argument only applies if it had survived 6 or 7 times with Keep, then was deleted once. The fact that it was AfD'd with the result of Delete, and a Deletion Review also kept it deleted (and Jimbo also weighed in on the issue) makes it very unlikely to be created and kept in the future. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-08 16:06Z
Here is just one example to show it did survive with a keep which you claim didn't ever happen, I picked number 13 because 13 is such a lucky number.... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America_(13th_nomination) Mathmo Talk 17:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Just because it's in writing doesn't mean it's legitimate (that should be obvious on a site like Wikipedia). Not only was that AfD closed way too early (15 minutes after it was opened), all of the keep votes by registered users are by accounts that haven't made edits since the month that AfD was opened/closed. At least 1 or 2 are probably sock puppets. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-08 20:57Z
It was also closed by someone who was involved in the debate, which is even worse. Addendum In fact, all three of the non-anon keep !votes, and the closure, were by indef-blocked suspected sockpuppets. -- Kicking222 22:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Associtation of America

Someone who has the power should add the Gay Nigger Association of America to this list. I don't know if they have a page or not, but its worth mentioning. And Wikipedia is not "censored". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Can Not (talk • contribs) 01:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree, Wikipedia hasn't been the same since the VFD policy was broken and the Gay Nigger Association of America article was deleted. --HideandLeek 22:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America --Indolences 03:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Please add the kind folks at the Gay Nigger Association of America to this page. --Pewpewlazers 04:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Attention whoring do work sometimes, even for internet trolls. We should add it Yongke 17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think after this video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rubm-ttR-Lw), they should definitely be added.

I think, therefore I am. The Gay Nigger Association of America Exists and therefore the article should not have been deleted. Is this an all encompasing global encylopedia? Or is it a forum for control freaks and obsessive anal retentive conservitives to decide what is and is not admissible as knowledge? Bigbrisco 04:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Merely existing is not a good enough reason for an article to exist about the subject. I exist, does that mean there automatically has to be an article about me? Mathmo Talk 05:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You make a valid point, however you maintain no online presence. While I'm not involved or even interested in the GNAA, they do maintain a presence. The fact that they exist may not be enough unto itself, however the fact that a significant number people know they exist should warrant an article. The youtube video after Yongke's post should be adequate justification for significance. Bigbrisco 16:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I do have an online presence, my user page on wikipedia is one such example! Mathmo Talk 04:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Until they are mentioned in enough reliable sources to make a decent article, there's no point in even discussing them. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-08 16:26Z
CNN isn't reliable? Bigbrisco 21:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
What CNN source are you specifically referring to? Lenoxus " * " 09:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The trolls don't belong here on a disambig page. There is no wiki article about them, nor does it appear that they are ever going to be deserving of one. Vivaldi (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Never Say Never Again! The existence for a long of a wiki article about them and the many AFDs is a much stronger indication than most that there is the possibility of sometime in the future (who knows when, another year or two?) there once again existing another article about them. Mathmo Talk 07:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry. If there ever is a time when this group becomes notable enough for an article, then I will be the first one to put this link back in. Right now there are no secondary sources that indicate this group is notable, nor does it appear there ever will be. Vivaldi (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Basically, this group will not have a mention in this disambig page until it has an article written about it... and that's not going to happen until they get some kind of non-trivial mainstream media recognition. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It also seems unlikely to happen since the article has been both deleted, and the deletion review kept it deleted. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-16 14:31Z
Deleted after 18 attempts, if that doesn't reek of a Bad Faith deletion and a Bad Faith Nomination i don't know what does. this Crusade against trolls by certain wikipedia editors and admins won't make them go away and it won't make them stop vandalizing wikipedia. it only serves to harm the credibility and usefulness of wikipedia. right now the first links for a google search of "GNAA" point to gnaa.us and encyclopediadramatica.com. i don't know why anyone thinks it's a positive thing for people searching for information as to what the GNAA is to get their info there rather than here is a good thing.--Lehk 02:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
That makes no sense... so you're saying that the nominator was in control of all of the voters, as well as the people who handled the deletion review (and kept the article deleted)? You're also saying the nominator did so in bad faith (and you're therefore violating WP:AGF). You've posed a lot of vague rationale, none of which have their basis in Wikipedia guidelines or policy. WP:V and WP:RS are all that are really needed to show the entire article was unfounded. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-29 10:55Z
So are you saying the previous 17 AfD's failed by magic? if you are relentless enough with anything eventually you will win because the people who care most are usually the same people who care for the wrong reasons. --Lehk 05:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
There was no consensus in the previous 17, so essentially they count for nothing. No procedures were violated in renominating for the 18th time, so you don't have much foundation for your argument. You're also ignoring the fact that most of the previous 17 were nominated by trolls. You're also ignoring the fact that attribution, verifiability, and reliable sources have become a big deal on the site, leading people to vote more in favor of deletion. Read the Signpost article on the deletion for more info. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-30 11:55Z

Isn't both being known by so many wiki admins and setting the record for AFD significant? What if the GNAA was no longer defunct and took wikipedia with a storm of vandalism? In fact, if the GNAA attacked wikipedia with significant force and left their mark on Wiki, maybe warrenting some news attention, would they get an article? 68.1.79.246 02:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To question 1: No. Events on wikipedia do not lend to significance. To question 2: If someone actually vandalized enough to get media attention someone would be going to jail. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
vandalizing wikipedia is not a crime. far from it. you are being delusional. frak you. that is all.--154.5.55.53 (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No reason there shouldn't be an article on the GNAA. They're notable enough in any case, if you don't think they're notable just ask anyone who's been on the internet more than 5 minutes about the pain series. Hell, the page should be made if only to save people from having to go to their home page and getting hit with lastmeasure. if you're not sure what that is feel free to google! :)

Except that under any measure of notability they fail unless suddenly you have evidence that no one else has had for several years of this nonsense? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected request

This page needs to be unprotected, and "Gay Nigger Association of America" added. This is certainly notable, and appears many times in a Google search on the first page (first entry on first page). What are the grounds for this being not mentioned please? --Rebroad 10:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

☒N Not done, at least not for now. You might be able to make that happen, but considering the attention paid to its deletion, I doubt you'll find an admin to unprotect the article without a pretty hefty discussion (WP:AN, mailing lists, WP:DRV, for example). Just a suggestion. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Since when did stuff need to be notable to appear on a page like this, nobody is talking about making an article on them but this looks like a distinct lack of information based on internal wikipedia politics and is unsatisfactory. I expect wikipedia to give info on acronyms and for this one I both had to look on Google and find I cannot add the info, this seems to go against wikipedia proinciples of being a knowledgeable and hel;pful encyclopedia, SqueakBox 19:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
From the Manual of Style: "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles." Red-linked entries that have the potential to become articles are also allowed, but that is not the case here, either. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-07 20:03Z
The gnaa even trolled cnn with their jewsdidwtc site, see it here on youtube
Family Guy Guy 04:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Actions after Un-protect

The war begins again? Wikipedia has found this particular organization to be non-notable. I have no interest in a revert war, but there appears to be an agenda. Certainly it looks like middle-school vandalism, and that's the basis I reverted on. You guys fight it out among yourselves, I'll go back to the teenagers. Wombatcat 17:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Which war is that? There was a lot of confusion over the vandalism but I am unaware of an edit war having begun. I didnt know what GNAA meant the other day when |I came across the acronym elsewhere and looked it up here and it was obvious what I wanted was not here. So I had to look on Google, which is pathetic as acronym explanation is one of the better features of wikipedia. Whether we have an article or not on this group makes no odds to me but if people are using wikipedia to find out what this acronym means and it isnt here we are letting our readers down. A really good case for WP:IAR, SqueakBox 17:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the group form the list. As of RIGHT NOW, the group is considered non-notable. If Wikipedia decides to allow the group back in, by all mean, re-add them to the list. any discussion of whether the article should be reinstated should be directed to deletion review. Wildthing61476 17:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Non notable for an article doesnt mean non notable here. This serioyusly weakens our credibility and I find it hard to comprehend motives for this, SqueakBox 17:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
What is your claim based on? From the Manual of Style: "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles." Red-linked entries that have the potential to become articles are also allowed, but that is not the case here, either. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-14 18:12Z
We shouldnt use policy to make a worse encyclopedia, which is why we have IAR, SqueakBox 18:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
A disambig page cluttered with useless garbage makes for a worse encyclopedia. If we're to allow an entry that can't be an article, we can add anything to the page, right? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-14 18:23Z

Please elacve the NPOV tag in place while this dispute gets resolved. Editing in a conflictive way and then removing the dispute tag is not acceptable (IMO nor is weaklening the encyclopedia in this way), SqueakBox 18:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How is this a POV page? This is disambiguation, not an article. Wildthing61476 18:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I tell you what, how about we have this settled by a 3rd party? I'm open to having this discussed, and if I'm wrong, so be it, that sound fair to you? Wildthing61476 18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I think an Rfc would be a good idea as greater community input should be brought in in this case. BTW I have no desire to see an article on this particular GNAA but when wikipedia acronym pages dont contain an acronym I always add it as otherwise readers like me the other day get frustrated and end up not relying on wikipedia (I'd not heard of this group till then), SqueakBox 18:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you on that, but there is predicent regarding groups and acronyms. I'll set up the Rfc then to get greater community input. Wildthing61476 18:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Should the disambig page for AA be filled with every single known possibility, and thus be flooded with garbage, making it impossible for readers to find useful content? An arbitrary limit needs to be drawn, and the most obvious choice is to only include possible articles. If you want to suggest another arbitrary limit, feel free. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-14 18:30Z

Wrong. In this case all the initial Google results point tot his organisation [16]. Any commonly used acronym should be included, any original research shouldnt, SqueakBox 18:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Google is not a reliable source, nor are the main entries that show up in that search. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-14 18:30Z
    • The GNAA trolls should no way be on here - that one's been discussed to death - but should this "German association for archaeology and archaeometry" be on here either? Seeing as that's a redlink, it shouldn't really be here either, unless someone's planning to write an article on them in the very near future. Are they really notable? Moreschi Talk 19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, I still don't think this German archaeology group is notable. There's almost nothing on Google (only 244 Ghits) apart from some passing mentions of their founding, from what I can find, and a passing listing in the German Wikipedia in one of their articles. Nothing on News, and only 1 hit on Scholar. I don't think we should link to them, seeing as that's unlikely to be a viable article any time soon. Moreschi Talk 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We have no verifiable encyclopedic information on the group, they really are not encyclopedic material. The article was deleted, and the deletion review kept it deleted. The subject is not encyclopedic, it is just a bunch of guys on IRC, like thousands of other groups we also do not mention. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: Inclusion of Gay Nigger Association of America

This is a dispute over whether the Gay Nigger Association of America should be included in this disambiguation page. 18:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statements made by editors previously involved in debate

(ec)Which war is that? There was a lot of confusion over the vandalism but I am unaware of an edit war having begun. I didnt know what GNAA meant the other day when |I came across the acronym elsewhere and looked it up here and it was obvious what I wanted was not here. So I had to look on Google, which is pathetic as acronym explanation is one of the better features of wikipedia. Whether we have an article or not on this group makes no odds to me but if people are using wikipedia to find out what this acronym means and it isnt here we are letting our readers down. A really good case for WP:IAR, SqueakBox 17:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your claim based on? From the Manual of Style: "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles." Red-linked entries that have the potential to become articles are also allowed, but that is not the case here, either. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-14 18:12Z

We shouldnt use policy to make a worse encyclopedia, which is why we have IAR, SqueakBox 18:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A disambig page cluttered with useless garbage makes for a worse encyclopedia. If we're to allow an entry that can't be an article, we can add anything to the page, right? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-14 18:23Z

I went ahead and removed the group form the list. As of RIGHT NOW, the group is considered non-notable. If Wikipedia decides to allow the group back in, by all mean, re-add them to the list. any discussion of whether the article should be reinstated should be directed to deletion review. Wildthing61476 17:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments
  • IAR shall -only- be invoked when it is in the benefit of the wiki. Since we have already decided not to have an article on "Gay Nigger Associate of America" then there is absolutely zero point in including them in this page. Infact, it makes the page less-useful to include all kind of random nonsense. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If that particular GNAA is non-notable (and it seems that they are), there's no point in including them in a disambiguation page. Since they aren't notable, people probably aren't going to come here looking for them, anyway. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I see how including the link benefits the encyclopedia...they are not noted in any verifiable reliable sources, so why include them? --Iamunknown 21:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And there was me thinking we are here to disseminate knowledge. Someone suggested goinng to an acronym site if one wants acronym information, which I thought was a terrible comment. This is not the Gay Nigger page it is the GNAA page and while this group isnt notable enough for an article if people are using this page to search for an unknown GNAA acronym as I did the other day and wikipedia fails to tell what it is IMO wikipedia is failing in its job. I invoked IAR because I want to see an encyclopedia containing knowledge and IMO this group exists and therefore should be notable enough to appear on the GNAA page, SqueakBox 22:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • We are not an indiscriminant collection of information. This is an encyclopedia, they simply are not encyclopedic, there are thousands of little troll/hacker/l33t groups out there, they don't get in the encyclopedia unless they meet our inclusion standards. Consensus is that they do not. Lots of things exist, it does not mean they belong here. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If at some point the GNAA becomes notable then we will have an article on it and it will be included in this dab page. Not before then. JoshuaZ 22:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think people forget what a dab page actually is... they're necessary because sometimes two articles might have the same logical name, so we need to disambiguate between multiple articles, and that's it. They were never supposed to be canonical lists of everything that could be called by a given name or acronym, just wikipedia articles that could be, or in some cases, likely Wikipedia articles that just haven't been written yet. Gay Nigger Association of America is not a likely article at this point. --W.marsh 23:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Drop the "OMG IT'S NON-NOTABLE" bullshit. The first result for GNAA on google refers to the trolling site, they have been mentioned on CNN, and they are generally accepted to be a well-known trolling group. Uncyclopedia has not, to my knowledge, been referenced in the mainstream media. Explain why Uncyclopedia is notable, whereas GNAA is not. Is it because, as I suspect, Uncyclopedia is generally very friendly to Wikipedia whereas the GNAA tend to vandalize it? Because I can name at least 500 other things that are less notable than GNAA, all of which have an article. --BlarghHgralb 01:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This is for the talk page of that article... but check the references for Uncyclopedia before declaring there are no mainstream media references. --W.marsh 02:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right, the Hindustan Times and the New Zealand herald are far more notable than CNN. --BlarghHgralb 04:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
A mention of an associated website on CNN does not make something notable. Indeed, "GNAA" itself isn't even mentioned in the CNN segment. When you have multiple, non-trivial independent reliable sources about the GNAA then bring it up again on DRV. Until then, stop wasting our time. JoshuaZ 05:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this matter is resolved. If you wish to challenge the claim they are not notable, I suggest WP:DRV. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting addition of Gay Nigger Association of America

The Gay Nigger Association of America is well recognised. It is ashame some have taken to vandalization in the name of GNAA. The members of the GNAA are a proud, upstanding group who's reputation has been smeared. Even regardless, no matter how good or bad an organization is, it doesn't merit grounds for deletion. If fellow wikians disagree then they need to take a strong look at Adolf hitler and Osama Bin Laden, for they are far worse than a harmless Internet group of which the only seeming flaw is those who take offense to the word NIGGER. For SHAME! Pretest 17:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed 18 times and the eventual consensus was to delete the article for Gay Nigger Association of America. That decision was then reviewed on WP:DRV several times, and the consensus was to keep deleted. The primary reason is that there were no reliable sources for the article, and thus it failed basic Wikipedia content policies. *** Crotalus *** 18:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is they are not an encyclopedic subject, just on of the thousands of such little groups that are also not mentioned. Do not continue to add them to this page. Read above. (H) 18:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Please, DNFT
-0918

This could be the most rediculous excuse I've ever heard for censorship, lack of a source? On the "Gay Niggers from Outer Space" page the GNAA's website was used as a SOURCE so apparently by Wikipedia standards the GNAA is a reliable source. It obviously exists, and created numerous websites which have been featured on the news, most notibly JEWSDIDWTC which was featured on a CNN segment, so is CNN not a reliable enough source for Wikipedia? Do we need to find a blog written by an unknown disreputable basement dweller or will you just admit to deleting it because "you dont like it"? Also, the GNAA does not troll Wikipedia, and is in fact currently inactive. But it does still exist in the form of last measure, and JEWSDIDWTC. locking the talk page and creation of GNAA proves that you do not want it because you do not agree with it, that is tyranny, facism, and censorship, and to most it proves that Wikipedia will likely never be a reputable outlet for information until your editors can put aside their dislikes for the cause of archiving information. I do not like Adolf Hitler, but I would not vote for the deletion of his page because of that. --Theburk 18:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Fun fact: Did you know your account was created 3 minutes after User:Pretest was indefinitely blocked? [17] [18] — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-25 19:04Z


The morals of the organization has NEVER been a consideration as to if they should/shouldn't stay. Wikipedia has standards for what topics we cover and this topic was deemed not notable enough for inclusion. Untill that changes there won't be an article on wikipedia about them. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Theburk: Wikipedia can use websites as sources, but websites can't source themselves.--Can Not 21:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed comment, see: diff Mathmo Talk 20:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
For the record, this has nothing to do with their name - this is a simple matter of inclusion criteria. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't things like GNAA Slashdot posts, evidence of attacks by GNAA, etc be good enough as evidence to at least confirm their existence? Maybe Wikipedia shouldn't have a big article over the GNAA, but they could have a small one with what information is reliably available. Why isn't GNAA at least on this page? Obviously the GNAA exists right? Erwin Morland 04:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not on this page because it neither has an article nor is going to get one, and this in turn is for reasons already discussed. If you think it should have an article, then you can apply here. (Incidentally, you have a remarkable list of contributions, starting with the very first.) -- Hoary 04:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Existence is not a guarantor of, nor a criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Mr.Z-man 05:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the GNAA is notable enough to have an article at the French-Language Wikipedia.

What does that say about the English Wikipedia?

-- Mik 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Each wiki has it's own inclusion standards. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, do you have a link to the French wiki's article on GNAA? If they have source we can use then it might tip the debate one way or another. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Here it is; Apparently, the Russian-language Wikipedia also has an article.
-- Mik 20:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Neither article would pass our standards for inclusion since neither have sources. Since WP:V is a foundation policy the articles would likely fail whatever inclusion requirements those other projects have if they were to put the articles under scrutiny. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:V is not a foundation policy... Melsaran (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It says that in this particular (non-) instance, en-WP isn't as crappy as fr:WP. -- Hoary 01:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
agree, english wiki is the best one among wikis, you user:Mik should notice the high level of policies here--Andersmusician VOTE 01:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
And the French article has since been deleted it seems. Mr.Z-man 14:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Where's the template?

Since the page is protected, shouldn't a template be added to display it as such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luigifan (talk • contribs) 21:20, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

There is one. Notice the lock in the upper right hand corner? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

GayNigger Association of America : Added to disambiguation page

I think this should satisfy everyone -- It is acknowledged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.152.13 (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Even a cursory reading of the talk page above should persuade you that there's overwhelming agreement here that this particular "GNAA" isn't worth bothering with. -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The GNAA troll group is more notable than all the other GNAA's put together, they have the top 14 of 20 google results for GNAA. They have successfully trolled CNN, are responsible for "Last Measure", a popular denial of service / shock site and Last Measure OS - which (apparently, couldn't find evidence) made the news and cable TV when it was marked as with their OSX Intel goatse edition torrent, and of course there was the ruining harry potter thing which made fox news. I think you'll struggle to find a slashdot reader who hasn't heard of the GNAA, I don't even read slashdot and I've heard of them. Debates like this turn people off Wikipedia, their exclusion is actually a win for the GNAA because it looks like butthurt Wikipedians are crying over being trolled. Next people will be saying Encyclopedia Dramatica isn't noteworthy either, oh wait.. Bitplane 07:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitplane (talk • contribs)
It's welcome to get a disambiguation link the moment it has an article to link to. If you really think that this particular "GNAA" deserves an article, by all means argue your case. More precisely, argue for the "undeletion" of the previous article about it; and not here, but instead in the appropriate place: "Deletion Review". Better marshal your arguments carefully before you set off, though. -- Hoary (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I should point the error in the statement "It's welcome to get a disambiguation link the moment it has an article to link to." While that is techinically true, it much narrower than the whole truth. A link can be on a disambiguation page even if it is red link so long as it can reasonably be expected that it could potentially have an article about it. For instance if there is a disambig page for bareback then I could reasonably add to the link already there to horse riding bareback by adding one to the bareback in terms of a sexual act even if the page didn't already exist because it is reasonable to belive a page on barebacking could exist (and it does actually exist already in the instance of this example). Mathmo Talk 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Right, this page won't have a listing for the troll group until there is an article to link to... and this isn't the right place to debate the merits of having an article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not about to take up a campaign on behalf of the GNAA's publicity machine, I'm not associated with them and don't agree with their trolling. I was just reading this page and decided to add my 2c, on behalf of the non-deletionist who don't seem to be represented here. 86.155.77.113 (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, no need to get defensive. We were just explaining the reasoning for the deletion and the exclusion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


There are many articles that don't have sources, why do people fight so hard to ban this one article? it's like you're trying to get noticed by one of the admins or something, sad really... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eweyewewe (talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I am not sure you understand how Wikipedia works. And for the record, some of the editors on this talk page are admins. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-04 16:36Z

Archive 1 Archive 2

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GNAA_(disambiguation)/Archive_1&oldid=1142519149"