Talk:DeviantArt/Archive 1

"In late 2004, advertisements were introduced on the userpages of non-subscribing members."

This is not really accurate - the ads are only visible to non-subscribers, and non-subs have always had ads...so all that can really be said is "another ad was introduced". --disastrophe 18:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup Required

I hate to say this, but this page is a mess. While I did contribute several POV parts to this article earlier on, I'm seeing some form of hissy fit now happening between those who are pro- and anti-deviantart in the history page and to be frank, it's getting ridiculous. Once it would be all from the POV of users who are upset with deviantart policies; then everything would be removed and rewritten from the POV of someone who supports it. I think the most obvious I've seen is under the topic deviantART as a corporation - I was just editing the part about the search function being removed, and found that it was rewritten in such a way that it lost the meaning of the original line, and now makes absolutely no sense why it was ever pointed out. There's also one huge chunk in "Ethical Concerns" which, if viewed from an outsider's POV, doesn't seem to bear relevance to anything unless you read the history pages (someone else has previously written an angry point on deviantart's banning policy).

This just looks like some back-and-forth online fighting with people rewriting over others' points, and that is just making the article less about deviantart but more about the online fanfight it causes. Personally I don't think I'm going to do the cleanup because I was responsible for some POV stuff, but I suggest you all calm down and clear this article up. --Grumpyhan 17:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Banishment from the Community

I just noticed this section had been added. I don't get it. Most online communities out there can ban members for breaking policy. What makes deviantART so special? If no one replies, I am going to remove that addition. Ambush Commander 20:59, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I checked the history and it turns out that the user Dxd is replacing huge chunks of text with the "banishment from the community" paragraph, which is exactly the kind of behaviour I'm talking about when I mention how this whole page is a mess because people keep making things nonsensical and unnecessary because it doesn't fit their POV (you are supposed to rectify errors within the information, not completely eradicate the whole thing and deny its existence!). There is no good reasoning behind the removal of "Ethical and Legal concerns", and while it may be generally confusing it should be reworded rather than replaced with how deviantart bans people - to which I agree with Ambush Commander has no reason to be in this article. (Dxd, I don't know if you read this part of wikipedia but your edits are very close to becoming vandalism. Can you please try not to remove huge paragraphs, or at least practise some restrain to not write DA-positive POV parts?) -Grumpyhan 05:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, um... oops

Ok, I just did an edit, and didn't realize how much of a pro-DA/anti-DA war there's going on here. I've just heard about a lot of this stuff - hell, I just had a deviation deleted and was told Gabe Newell's personal statement was not enough to confirm my assertion - but if my added stuff is too POV or something, feel free to prune it out. I'd do it, but I do kinda like what I wrote. Sorry if it gives anyone a headache. Scumbag 02:55, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Anti vs Pro

To be honest, everything after the intial section is so POV it's ridiculous.

The claims about the site administration are ridiculous and unfounded. Yes there are rules and yes there are guidebooks and training manuals that users don't get to see, but why the hell do you need to see them? Would you go ask a police officer to see his training manual?

And for the record I removed the other concerns bit because it was complete bull. Not an ounce of redeemable material in there.

If you want my recommendations for cleaning it up, remove everything after the first section and rewrite it all. Stick to the facts about what the site does, not about personal issues regarding bans or deleted work. dxd 24/04/2005

I hope this doesn't offend you, DXD, but I'm reading a strong bias towards pro-DA sentiments from your statement here. Using the words "ridiculous", "unfounded" and "bull" does nothing to prove that whatever you claim to be are of such if you do not bring up proof or try, at least, to quell such claims. Please amend and ensure that whatever you do is not so POV. -Grumpyhan 14:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Grumps here. I didn't like how much was removed, so I put some of it back. I like to think I modified the article, in general, to be a bit more NPOV. Instead of saying what DA has said, or what banned people have said, I've mentioned both. And I know its lame to point this out, but I've seen the name DxD floating around deviantart for a while now... Scumbag