538:- I must apologise that the page now just looks like a bunch of links, and assertions of notoriety. I guess that i am just trying to make sure that this passes the Vfd. If you guys would kindly remove the tag, I'll add a bit more general substance to the article, to make it more encyclopaedic. It is just because certain people seem to be questioning its notoriety and/or that it is original research. Remove the tag and I will pad out the article more. IMO a Vfd tag should not be allowed to be put on newly created articles made in good faith, as they should be given at least a month to be written properly. I believe that this is the main problem here. Vfd tag put in far too quickly influenced vote.
663:
10,000 users per day, well, it was in the system logs. And besides which, it was much more popular than
Crystal Palace. As for your search, you should realise that planes of existence refers to astral travel. This makes it extremely difficult to search for links about it. Its also been ended for quite some time. I am trying to get links, but its not easy to get them all. If you like, I can remove the 10,000 users per day bit, and instead put in that it was the most popular talker on talker.com from 1996-1999 (Crystal Palace is also on talker.com and was then).
878:
popular isn't really the point here, and determining its popularity is irrelevant with regards to its relevance). I've also put in a basic history, focussing primarily on the events in late 1998/early 1999, as well as the incident that was the death of talkers. Perhaps I should link to NUTS 3 code to point out the holes in the code that allowed this kind of thing to happen? Might be a bit difficult to extract though. Also I found out apparently it started in
October 1996, not July 1996, so I fixed that. Seems it was about for a lot shorter than it seemed to be.
552:- Thanks to the glorious internet archive, I managed to find archive page from the founder of Planes of Existence's personal homepage which talk about some of the controversies. I know its a personal homepage, but it was linked off the official site and does reference evidence. Have still been unable to source the 1996-1999 version of the official site, under original owners. Will keep looking. But I hope that this puts an end for good to the claims of non-notoriety, lack of references, and all of the other silly claims being made here.
302:. I have heard of PoE, although not Lintilla. I got to this article while trying to research a bit of history I remembered. I'd say that it's useful. Talkers aren't / weren't as well-known as MUDs, IRC, etc, but still have their place in "technosocial" history. Articles describing some of the most notable talkers, then, would be good things to have. If keeping isn't an option, then perhaps this (along with other notable talkers) should be merged into the Talkers article.
217:) are all equally notable. Now, you can verify lintilla with active links, and you can see clearly the link to this one in the chain. If you delete this one due to notoriety then you have to delete lintilla. So go and have a look at that one, and if you think that lintilla isn't notable enough to keep, then neither is this one, and they both should be deleted. You really need to validate what constitutes notoriety before making something like an AFD.
630:, I'm not convinced these are not notable, and thus will not vote delete. However, there is no way I'm voting keep with the current information. Could someone involved reference the openening sentence specifically? (10,000 users / day, etc) The spin offs section should probably include those that are referenced (Plane of Women, etc). Altogether pathetic references for supposed 10,000+ users across 3 years. Indeed google for
1125:
owing to the fact that it closed 2 1/2 years ago (I can't see any other valid reason why it should be deleted), then I think that the information contained should instead be added to other articles as a merge. Whether it is essential for it to have its own page is one issue - there should be no issue about it needing to be included in the encyclopaedia. Its notability is well established.
479:- its not easy to scour the web for references to something that doesn't exist anymore, but I managed it, and included a lot of links, which reference its influence on popular culture (amongst other things). I am amazed that some people are still disputing that this has notoriety, but so be it. It certainly is not original research, and has been referenced many times.
249:
keeping, then and only then will I add in the huge chunks of history, and then only when its proven to be notable. As stated before, I really have to write the other 4 pages first before doing that, because they all tie in together. But I will make sure that this gets a Keep on the AFD before doing all of that, just to make sure that
Knowledge (XXG) approves.
861:
to zoophilia are slightly excesive and not too relevant, maybe some editing is in order, but not a flat out deletion. Now I know what PoE was, and finding out random stuff is kinda the point of an encyclopedia, no? PoE is deffinetly a historical reference to the beggining of talkers, and the internet culture in general. Why delete our own recent history?
908:
thing where a lot of people insist that talkers "only just started" in 1996 while they were statistically the most popular from 1992-1994 suggests bias. The fact that there were more talkers in the 1997-1998 period suggests to some that that was the height of their popularity, but the release of ICQ in 1996 means that in reality it wasn't.
1066:
thing? I am also concerned about adding such things until this Vfd passes, because zoo code references planes of existence directly, and was written on planes of existence by 2 planes of existence users (wizards actually) when it was at the height of its popularity. Henceforth its notoriety is dependent on the notoriety of this article.
896:, when I was trying to decide whether Snowplains warrants a mention (IMO it doesn't - its historically irrelevant, and only has 11 users on right now so isn't popular enough to warrant notoriety). Indeed, Snowplains asserted that the article was primarily an advertisement for their service. So much for reliable sources!
285:
I thought that the lintilla links verify this. Its just that they wouldn't be appropriate to list here directly, because it would stop it being encyclopaedic. I can prove that it existed by referencing old talker lists (some of which haven't been updated since 1999!), and there's 10 or 15 web pages
248:
Sorry lots of comments here. Okay, I rewrote the whole lot. Just made it very clear, crystal clear in fact, as to why it is notable. I had to swallow a lot of pride on that one, but so be it. I am sure that you will agree that it is encyclopaedic. If you agree that it is notable, and hence worth
1349:
There are a lot of others that were more popular than some of the ones listed there, but I was only listing the first of something and most popular of something. There are ones such as
Snowplains which is probably the 4th most popular talker in history, or maybe 5th or 6th, and the first big ew-too
1297:- direct copy of lintilla. The fight itself greatly influenced the culture, and led to a move towards multiple worlds talkers, towards Nuts generally, and towards adult-orientated talkers (since 1996, half of the talkers are adult only). According to Alexa, is currently the 3rd most popular talker.
1065:
community, and the community itself is much smaller. Secondly, zoowiki already has a page on it, which seems to be sufficient. I felt that it was sufficiently notable to have its own heading within the zoophile article, however. Do you agree that this is the correct amount of notoriety for such a
950:, the first of which had no consensus, while the second resulted in a "keep". Star Wars MUSH was not one of the most popular MUSHes, but has historical importance in being the first of something, namely the first Star Wars MUSH. Therefore, by applying the same logic, this page, and indeed also the
919:
however. I guess if its list where it says that over 100 talkers use the code is true, then it is notable enough for me. But
Mamnuts, which only started 6 days ago and has no talkers using it, is hardly notable. Sounds like a good code base though, if you were going to start your own talker. But
860:
Don't delete or merge. It's ok as a standalone, although an introduction with a definition of some of the terms used later ("worlds", "talkers", etc.) would be fitting. I don't know where to find the criteria for deletion here, so if anyone can point me to a link, that'd be nice. Also the references
793:
This is of course a debatable issue. In some ways, doing so can be used to assert notoriety to this article, and hence why it cannot be deleted. However, some may view it as trying to influence the vote. So I thought to report it here, in case anyone disputes my validity in being able to do this.
682:
Sorry, just elaborating on the system logs bit. They produced automatic stats of user numbers and popularity. A lot of talkers do this. 10,000 was the average. It got as high as 18,000. Oh, but it wasn't 18,000 on at a time or anything. I think the most on at a time was about 300. That's just
662:
Sorry, Plane of Women was a part of the talker. There were 10 talkers - Plane of Wisdom, Magic/Mysticism, Madness, Love, Lust/Extroversion, Animals, Women, Men, Peace/Dolphins and
Darkness/Dungeon (they changed names over time). These are not spin offs. They were a part of the talker. As for the
431:
Your edits only confirm my suspicions. I am not interested in an argument with you. I am interested in writing arguments. I did not ever pretend that I did not create this article, and did not use a sock puppet. Your statements and accusations are proven to be unfounded. Your usage of this as an
358:
itself. This page represents a missing link which ties it all together, and is an important, if not essential, part of wikipedia. In a sense, it helps to form the history of wikipedia itself. If it is deleted, then people would not be able to adequately understand the history of what led to us to
166:
If someone wrote a history of chat site culture, they would include this. Is there such a thing on wikipedia? I know, nowadays people don't much use talkers. People use MSN messenger or Yahoo or ICQ. But people used to use them a lot from 1993-1998 or thereabouts, and this one was one of the big
162:
Again, if this is a matter of not being notable enough, then fine, but *PLEASE* quote your sources! For heaven's sakes! Just arbitrarily getting rid of it like this is atrocious. If nothing else, that took me 2 hours to write! 2 hours out of my life! If I'd known I was writing it just for it to
154:
If you are going to delete it then fine, but at least give a sensible reason why. If it is policy not to list chat sites, or that there is a certain criteria of popularity, then fine. But list it please. I mean, without knowing what the criteria was, I would have thought that 10,000 users per day
120:
Took a while for your comment to show up. Why is it non-notable though? What's the criteria? It had over 10,000 users per day for a period of 7 years, had over 50 spin off chat sites that cite this as its basis for existence, and helped to change political systems. I would have thought that that
1361:
warrant their own pages either. They are just code bases after all, and every talker ever created had its own unique code base (well, perhaps not quite every one, but every one with a competent developer). Fantasia's, Sleepy's and lintilla all were identical, so that's perhaps one exception. But
1311:
as a 17 year old, and also is seen as the catalyst for the death of talkers, because of his actions on CP in 1998 and POE in 2000. Also holds the record for the most number of "worlds" - 30, which represented perhaps just why talkers died - because there were too many talkers and not enough people
899:
As for the ew-too page, that's written by the guy who runs foothills. Granted that we can establish that he is of historical importance, but he is clearly biased in favour of ew-too talkers, and indeed their charts don't even recognise the existence of non ew-too talkers. Neil
Robertson protested
1124:
I will obviously protest the decision, as I think that standard wikipedia policy was not used when deciding on the deletion process, and this is a valid encyclopaedic article that is important from a historical perspective. However, if
Knowledge (XXG) decides that it should be deleted, presumably
341:
programs. Whilst it came about during a period where talkers as a whole were not particularly popular (and the short-lived web-based chats were), it was the most popular of these talkers at the time, and helped to provide that smooth follow through to the next stage, of instant messengers. After
147:
I noticed the nominator got rid of the
External Links section. A convenient way to push for a deletion, methinks. Granted they are dead links, but that's where they were held. As stated previously, there was a court case forcing the deletion of a lot of it, and the remainder were either deleted
745:
is the 3rd most popular web site that is under the category "talker" (behind Surfer's and Resort). I tried to get Alexa rankings for 1996 and such but was unable to. Of course, that doesn't make it the 3rd most popular talker necessarily, but its a good hint. Isn't in the top 100,000 web sites
907:
So the thing is that this is a very subjective account, for 2 primary reasons: 1) they historically didn't have web pages and hence most of the evidence of everything was stored within the talker itself, and 2) all of the talk about everything is done from a promotional point of view. The whole
877:
Comment: Great suggestions! I have fixed up the article with relation to the tips. I just have the small link to zoo code listed in influence (its been established by its apparent creator that it wasn't that big a deal), and got rid of the fan sites (the fact that it had a lot of users and was
819:
already existed or that talkers were now on the internet. So, just imagine that in the future sometime someone else is asked to do a project on the history of talkers, to develop something else. If they don't have these kind of resources to investigate it, it might not happen. This whole area
267:
if not. I don't recall ever having heard of any of these, and I've been around MUDs and MUCKs and IRC and so on. If this information can be independently verified, and the articles brought up to
Knowledge (XXG) standards, great. Otherwise I don't think they should be deleted just because they no
221:
If its a matter of references, or how its written, then fine. But please remove the AFD and give it time. Once I've written the other 4 pages, then it'll all be pieced together nicely. This is the most important piece in the puzzle of them all, but they all need to be written. But if you are
158:
It's not like this was just some random chat site that someone made as a pet project that was never popular, nobody ever went to, and no programming ever went in to it. I know that such places exist. This was one that influenced tens of thousands of lives. There are probably more notable chat
672:
It was also called a huge number of different names. "POE", as well as abbreviations for each of the 10 planes, including "POA", "POD", "POW", "POM", "POL" and others. People called it "plain" and often just called it "Madness" and left out the plane altogether, or PoE and so forth. Makes it
524:= I've also put in there a few other *independent* links that demonstrate that Planes of Existence influenced places outside of their general user demographic, and indeed outside of talkers generally. Zoocode is one great example of that. That was created by 2 Planes of Existence users.
1334:
scenes - and hence the Lust talker was the most popular of its type (and probably the most popular adult talker ever). The 2000 incident on the talker, with the spying, was the most notable, because that caused the death of talkers. A lot of other smaller incidents were also
784:
That in the late 1990s and early 2000s most of the major zoophile talkers shut down. Plane of animals was the only major zoophile talker that shut down over this period of time, so I linked to it. It was also the most popular of the zoophile talkers that were about at the
768:. Nonetheless, I added a redlink and might fill it in later. I think that the dates suggest that it came after Crossroads, but it was probably the first NUTS talker that was created by Neil Robertson, who wrote NUTS, and hence is probably notable enough for inclusion.
1350:
talker that was created after 1996, and the only one that broke free of the stranglehold that NUTS had on the market. Or of course we can talk about the various talkers that influenced different code bases. But in my mind those things don't warrant their own pages.
1219:- Not sure if this is the 3rd ever internet talker or not, but seems to be. Was the first really popular one, getting over 100 people online at a time. Historically it is the 3rd most popular talker in history. Also formed Elsewhere code, which became ew-too code.
900:
at that in 1998 and joined with them, but Neil Robertson is biased. He does not mention a single adult-orientated talker, and only mentions the ones that he likes. Some of the talkers he listed in his history are so far from being notable as to be a joke. I mean
780:
That talkers are the main way that zoophiles get together, but that they are rarely advertised publicly. That's not true, as Planes of existence, lintilla and sleepy's, all with zoophile ports, advertised this very publicly and were listed on most major talker
741:. All of this is very stubby, but this is just so tiring to do all of this. I've also referenced a lot of official history of talkers in doing this, to put it all in to perspective. And I've referenced Alexa a fair bit. According to Alexa, right now
954:
page have just as much historical significance, and within a similar kind of community (MUSH and Talker communities are similar), and hence the precedent set in that vote means that Knowledge (XXG) already approves of this kind of article existing.
574:. This was primarily a talker, however, but based on WP:WEB, it establishes notoriety on the web page alone, by being listed in the way back machine. I know, this has already been proven to be notable already, but I thought that this was notable.
464:
on the part of the article writer, which is not allowed. Remove the unverified bits and you're left with... that this was an adult chat site that people used. If the author can rewrite and source the article, I'll consider keeping on the merits.
1318:(this one) - first multiple worlds talker that was not entirely adult-orientated, first to use NUTS 3 linking code, first talker of any kind to mix all ages and adult areas, first talker to mix general with human rights elements (although
493:- very exciting. I found a thing called a "Way back when" internet archive, which has some links to official Planes of Existence pages, so I put them in in the links. I also had some from Fantasia's old pages which reference PoE.
1013:
3? There's 2, as the others all made qualifications. I would suggest that its all been well and truly verified by now. And it is an important part of history, so needs to stay. This has been validated in many places. See here:
286:
that go on to talk a bit about it, but none in great depth. I don't see why you'd want to link them here though, because its not encyclopaedic. Do a google search for "Planes of Existence" and "talker" and you'll see them all.
110:
Why delete it? Not notable enough? You don't like to list chat sites? I guess if lintilla isn't listed then this one shouldn't be either, because lintilla was way more popular than this one, and was around for a lot longer too.
788:
I added the link to zoo code, which is an important part of the identity of being a zoophile, and made a link back to planes of existence because it was created by users on the planes of existence (as referenced in the code
1209:- second ever internet talker, and first ever popular one, created in 1991. (define popularity in that it had over 10 users on at a time, and had users that did not belong to the university where it was stored).
1345:
talker. Probably notable as the most well-designed talker in history, with the most unique code ever. But most notable because of the spying incident in 1998, which eventually caused the death of talkers.
1170:
Comment: I think that that is plausible to merge it all. However, then the problem exists as to which of the talkers to keep in their own right and which to merge, and how to merge them. Also, with the
1362:
if we went around including every code base, we'd have 1000 articles, which I think is excessive. There were really only 2 main code bases used - ew-too and Nuts. That's all we need articles on.
510:
that talks about Planes Of Existence's influence on Zoophilia (it's in German). I don't know if that impresses you or not that that kind of thing exists, but it certainly asserts notoriety.
811:, the most popular talker base in history, in 1992, it was done as a school project about the history of talkers. He was asked to write his own version of a talker, which was based on
1150:, etc) pages were recently merged into the same article, which may be appropriate in this case as well. In any case, this work shouldn't be deleted without at least merging first.
840:
and so forth that were about later (and now). However, it may still be used for a project by someone. Deleting something of historical significance may prevent future projects.
1263:
in history, but not recognised by Nuts creator Neil Robertson (or by Ncohafmuta's creator, who insists that Ncohafmuta was not Nuts - it was Iforms which is based on Nuts).
321:: I don't see why you would delete this, as it is an important part of describing the history of the internet. It helps to tie the link in development from when we had
848:
about the stolen code. Its an important part of the history. As are the wars that the early talkers had with their universities, who refused to host them! LOL.
746:
though, but that is not a surprise, since talkers are not web sites, and rarely have a web site component at all. Hence Alexa rankings are somewhat irrelevant.
904:? Come on now. Who has heard of that? Nobody uses their code base, and nobody ever went to their talker. It just so happens that Neil liked the talker.
600:
Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better. This is only to be brought into consideration if no other means of justifying a website's article can be found.
888:
page that there was a reference to a BBC article as apparent proof of validity, yet when I investigated the article it turns out that it is a BBC-approved
602:- forum size had 100,000 unique members, and while I don't really understand what an Alexa ranking is, the above link suggests that it had a high ranking.
988:
We currently have 3 in favour of keep, 2 in favour of delete, with 4 unsure. Perhaps the 4 unsure should be contacted to see what their decision is?
148:
because the accounts became inactive or else they were on free servers that delete things after a while. Still worth keeping the links there though.
406:
96:
67:
167:
ones out there back then. It is historically important if you want to understand such things as the evolution to ICQ and things like that.
159:
sites but not a lot of them. It was probably on par with Crossroads or Lintilla with notoriety, but probably not as notable as Surfers.
460:. There are lots of accusations and lots of chat-politicking, but nothing that indicates where that information came from. This suggests
1000:
Wow, I have never seen such fervour to keep a page. By my reckoning we have 3 deletes, with a fourth if the article is not verified. --
1087:
and he can confirm the relevance of this page. Didn't vote for some reason though. But there is debate whether it should be in the
17:
176:
Hope you get a kick out of destroying people's work there, buddy, cos there's nothing constructive in deleting something like this.
1053:, but am not sure whether it is sufficiently notable to warrant a page on Knowledge (XXG). Whilst it is popularly used within the
1412:
1400:
1382:
1369:
1161:
1129:
1111:
1095:
1070:
1036:
1022:
1004:
992:
978:
927:
852:
798:
750:
687:
677:
667:
653:
620:
606:
578:
556:
542:
528:
514:
497:
483:
469:
440:
414:
387:
363:
306:
290:
276:
253:
239:
194:
180:
138:
125:
115:
104:
73:
945:
411:
101:
958:
We can sit here and debate whether you personally think that this is important, and, if you personally don't think that
1430:
36:
170:
But hey, if you consider it to be non-notable, then go ahead. Delete it. At least it was only 2 hours of work, hey.
1315:
1284:
79:
570:, sites are archived based on their Alexa rating, which in turn is a basis for determining notoriety of webpages in
1179:
separate. Anyway, here is a list of the notable talkers (in my opinion) and why they are notable (1 line summary):
1338:
1308:
1300:
1288:
1280:
639:
214:
210:
1429:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
401:
372:
155:
for 7 years equated to notoriety. Not to mention the controversy involved in it, or the links that it gave.
91:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1294:
1276:
742:
206:
923:
At least nobody could suggest that this is advertising for anything. lol. The place closed down years ago.
1319:
1266:
1256:
765:
738:
734:
1272:
951:
287:
250:
236:
202:
177:
122:
112:
1291:
bragging rights as the most popular adult talker in history. Also the first ever multiple worlds talker.
867:
862:
1212:
726:
508:
269:
1365:
But if someone wishes to merge some of these, then that's fine. But that's my rationale for them all.
948:
1232:
845:
722:
1269:- first ever adult (18+) talker. Was not popular though. I don't know a lot about it so its a stub.
1222:
1206:
718:
714:
343:
49:
1275:- second ever adult talker, and historically influential on the whole adult community, as it led to
776:
to add links to the planes of existence, with regards to 3 existing assertions made in the article:
1260:
1246:
1190:
808:
772:
I've also gone to a few other places that referenced Planes of existence, including the article on
507:- I know you guys like it when you see wikicity projects talk about articles, so here's this one -
962:
are important full stop then it is pretty unlikely that you will. The thin links to things like
631:
1242:
761:
760:: I've been padding out some of the stubby articles and have discovered another notable talker,
638:
Perhaps this population of users was occupied with other passtimes. By the way, the comperable
186:
The article does assert some notability, but its current content is patently non-encyclopedic.
1196:
1186:
1047:
889:
833:
812:
710:
338:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1358:
912:
400:
Tisk, tisk. Who's not assuming good faith? See my talk page for the relevant discussion. --
1354:
1250:
1236:
1226:
1200:
963:
916:
816:
730:
567:
433:
380:
191:
588:
571:
461:
820:
might not be overly popular, and might never have been all that popular, in comparison to
273:
457:
272:
is long dead (in Internet time), but because of its influence, IT warrants an article. --
1390:. Notable enough in its day. Should we remove all articles for dead people as well? (
1176:
1158:
1142:- Quite a bit of information has now been collected about talkers. All the individual
1015:
941:
837:
650:
616:, does seem to meet WP:WEB, as well as being notable outside the direct scope of that.
466:
456:- Right now, I'm inclined to delete all of this for one reason: The articles lack any
1379:
1108:
1084:
617:
1051:
1409:
1366:
1126:
1092:
1067:
1033:
1019:
1001:
989:
975:
924:
849:
795:
747:
684:
674:
664:
603:
575:
553:
539:
525:
511:
494:
480:
437:
384:
360:
135:
355:
44:
The result of the debate was an eye-bleeding barrage of text. But it looks like
971:
706:
347:
303:
1397:
974:
are just that, thin. But it has great relevance within the talker community.
825:
1341:- possibly notable in terms of its popularity - competed as the most popular
1199:- first ever internet talker, created in 1990. Also the eventual basis for
1154:
1147:
1088:
1058:
884:
By the way, I just thought that I'd point out something here. I saw on the
773:
764:, although I question its assertion as the first major NUTS talker ahead of
646:
709:
to include this, and have also added pages for other important chat sites,
1331:
1323:
1054:
733:(the code base used on the early ones). I've also included less popular
351:
205:
with some links that verify that one. Now, the two of these (along with
1032:
We now have 7 in favour of keep, 3 in favour of delete, with 4 unsure.
1303:- important historically, primarily with regards to it being hacked by
376:
322:
858:
I moved this from the talk page. It seems they went to the wrong spot
959:
885:
828:
which it competed with early on, and especially not in comparison to
702:
354:
which in turn led to the reintroduction of online forums, including
232:
please, but feel free to come back in a month or so and have a look.
1392:
593:# Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members; or
1423:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1342:
1327:
1229:
code and equal most popular talker in history (still equal 1st).
1172:
1062:
938:
815:, one of the early intranet talkers, and he didn't realise that
683:
how many different users logged in at some time during the day.
173:
And delete my links, so that it looks like original research.
1330:
talkers, and as far as I know the only talker that had public
1143:
967:
829:
821:
334:
330:
326:
893:
1091:
page, so hence having a page for zoo code seems excessive.
1189:- first ever talker, created in 1984. Also the basis for
1408:
Historically significant in the history of Internet Chat
844:
By the way, I added in one of the early controversies on
163:
be deleted on the spot, then I wouldn't have written it.
1083:, the fellow that wrote Zoo Code is a user of wikipedia
222:
going to delete this one then I obviously won't bother.
1322:
sort of did that too). Was probably the most popular
1175:pages, they decided to keep a few of them, such as
911:Anyway, I have suggested for a AFD to be placed on
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1433:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1239:code, and equal most popular talker in history.
1050:called zoowiki has a page for Zoo Code already
1378:. Non-notable niche talker, quite dead now. --
1235:- created immediately after public release of
807:I just realised that when Neil Robertson made
190:unless completely rewritten, and verified. -
8:
1249:in history, and used as a partial basis for
1107:- I am not Hobbes, and never have been. --
673:ridiculously difficult to search for it.
436:is not something that I will buy in to.
944:was the subject of 2 votes for deletion
642:has an alexa a little past 2.7 million.
701:: I've done the history of talkers on
1057:community, it is no more common than
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
892:! I got this hint when I looked at
359:where we are today in the internet.
225:Even nominating this is ridiculous.
1287:, shares with Fantasia, Planes and
24:
1326:talker, one of the most popular
636:zero relevant on the first page!
342:instant messengers, we then had
1316:Planes of existence (chat site)
1285:Planes of existence (chat site)
634:shows only 100,000 links, with
80:Planes of existence (chat site)
1259:- officially the most popular
1245:- (possibly) the most popular
1:
1413:14:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
1401:04:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
1383:23:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
1370:19:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
1162:17:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
1130:15:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
1120:What to do if this is deleted
1112:23:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
1096:13:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
1071:15:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
1037:21:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
1023:13:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
1005:04:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
993:15:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
979:23:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
928:23:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
853:18:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
799:14:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
751:11:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
688:23:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
678:23:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
668:23:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
654:21:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
621:19:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
607:16:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
579:15:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
557:12:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
543:01:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
529:01:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
515:01:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
498:01:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
484:23:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
470:23:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
441:21:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
415:20:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
388:20:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
364:13:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
307:08:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
291:02:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
277:00:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
254:21:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
240:20:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
195:20:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
181:19:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
139:18:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
126:17:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
116:17:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
105:17:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
74:04:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
920:its basically advertising.
870:put on talk page by accident
1353:Indeed, I don't think that
1450:
1339:Crystal Palace (chat site)
1309:Crystal Palace (chat site)
1301:Fantasia's multiple worlds
1289:Crystal Palace (chat site)
1281:Fantasia's multiple worlds
640:Crystal Palace (chat site)
215:Crystal Palace (chat site)
211:Fantasia's multiple worlds
1018:for yet another example.
373:User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson
333:to when we ended up with
1426:Please do not modify it.
1295:Sleepy's multiple worlds
1277:Sleepy's multiple worlds
743:Sleepy's multiple worlds
568:The Internet Archive FAQ
207:Sleepy's multiple worlds
32:Please do not modify it.
1312:to spread between them.
915:. I am not sure about
1320:Crossroads (chat site)
1267:Lighthouse (chat site)
1257:Crossroads (chat site)
1225:- first talker to use
766:Crossroads (chat site)
739:Lighthouse (chat site)
735:Crossroads (chat site)
268:longer exist. I mean,
1307:who went on to start
933:Precedent set already
632:"planes of existence"
311:User's only 15th edit
270:PowWow (chat program)
1273:Lintilla (chat site)
1207:Cheesehouse (talker)
952:lintilla (chat site)
868:User: JuliusBonapart
866:unsigned comment by
863:User: JuliusBonapart
715:Cheesehouse (talker)
705:as well as updating
402:Jeffrey O. Gustafson
203:lintilla (chat site)
201:Okay I have written
92:Jeffrey O. Gustafson
86:Dead nn chat site.
375:is using this as a
1213:Foothills (talker)
727:Foothills (talker)
432:attempt to launch
48:is the verdict. →
1197:Cat Chat (talker)
1046:I noticed that a
871:
859:
834:instant messenger
711:Cat Chat (talker)
462:original research
339:instant messenger
313:
1441:
1428:
1233:Surfers (talker)
964:Yahoo! messenger
894:Snowplains' page
865:
857:
846:Surfers (talker)
723:Surfers (talker)
458:reliable sources
434:personal attacks
381:personal attacks
309:
71:
64:
59:
56:
34:
1449:
1448:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1431:deletion review
1424:
1223:Resort (talker)
1122:
1044:
986:
935:
719:Resort (talker)
566:- According to
371:: I think that
344:online journals
288:203.122.225.241
251:203.122.225.241
237:203.122.225.241
178:203.122.225.241
123:203.122.225.241
113:203.122.225.241
83:
70:
65:
62:
57:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1447:
1445:
1436:
1435:
1418:
1416:
1415:
1403:
1385:
1347:
1346:
1336:
1313:
1298:
1292:
1270:
1264:
1254:
1240:
1230:
1220:
1210:
1204:
1194:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1177:Star Wars MUSH
1165:
1164:
1121:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1099:
1098:
1085:User: Zetawoof
1061:is within the
1043:
1042:Zoo Code page?
1040:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1016:Talk:Zoophilia
1008:
1007:
985:
982:
942:Star Wars MUSH
934:
931:
882:
881:
880:
879:
842:
841:
838:World Wide Web
791:
790:
786:
782:
770:
769:
754:
753:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
680:
657:
656:
624:
623:
598:
597:
596:
595:
582:
581:
560:
559:
546:
545:
532:
531:
518:
517:
501:
500:
487:
486:
473:
472:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
393:
392:
391:
390:
315:
314:
296:
295:
294:
293:
280:
279:
257:
256:
234:
233:
219:
218:
198:
197:
152:
151:
150:
149:
142:
141:
134:as per nom. --
121:was notable.
108:
107:
82:
77:
66:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1446:
1434:
1432:
1427:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1414:
1411:
1407:
1404:
1402:
1399:
1395:
1394:
1389:
1386:
1384:
1381:
1377:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1368:
1363:
1360:
1356:
1351:
1344:
1340:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1299:
1296:
1293:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1271:
1268:
1265:
1262:
1261:Nuts (Talker)
1258:
1255:
1252:
1248:
1247:Nuts (Talker)
1244:
1241:
1238:
1234:
1231:
1228:
1224:
1221:
1218:
1214:
1211:
1208:
1205:
1202:
1198:
1195:
1192:
1191:Nuts (Talker)
1188:
1185:
1184:
1178:
1174:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1163:
1160:
1156:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1128:
1119:
1113:
1110:
1106:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1079:- Apparently
1078:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1069:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1049:
1041:
1039:
1038:
1035:
1024:
1021:
1017:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1006:
1003:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
991:
984:Current tally
983:
981:
980:
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
956:
953:
949:
946:
943:
940:
932:
930:
929:
926:
921:
918:
914:
909:
905:
903:
897:
895:
891:
887:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
869:
864:
855:
854:
851:
847:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
818:
814:
810:
809:Nuts (Talker)
806:
803:
802:
801:
800:
797:
787:
783:
779:
778:
777:
775:
767:
763:
759:
756:
755:
752:
749:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
697:
696:
689:
686:
681:
679:
676:
671:
670:
669:
666:
661:
660:
659:
658:
655:
652:
648:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
626:
625:
622:
619:
615:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
605:
594:
590:
587:Quoting from
586:
585:
584:
583:
580:
577:
573:
569:
565:
562:
561:
558:
555:
551:
548:
547:
544:
541:
537:
534:
533:
530:
527:
523:
520:
519:
516:
513:
509:
506:
503:
502:
499:
496:
492:
489:
488:
485:
482:
478:
475:
474:
471:
468:
463:
459:
455:
452:
451:
442:
439:
435:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
416:
413:
409:
408:
403:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
389:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
367:
366:
365:
362:
357:
353:
349:
345:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
317:
316:
312:
308:
305:
301:
298:
297:
292:
289:
284:
283:
282:
281:
278:
275:
271:
266:
263:if possible,
262:
259:
258:
255:
252:
247:
244:
243:
242:
241:
238:
231:
228:
227:
226:
223:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
199:
196:
193:
189:
185:
184:
183:
182:
179:
174:
171:
168:
164:
160:
156:
146:
145:
144:
143:
140:
137:
133:
130:
129:
128:
127:
124:
118:
117:
114:
106:
103:
99:
98:
93:
89:
85:
84:
81:
78:
76:
75:
69:
60:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1425:
1422:
1417:
1405:
1391:
1387:
1375:
1364:
1352:
1348:
1304:
1216:
1151:
1139:
1135:
1123:
1104:
1080:
1076:
1045:
1031:
987:
957:
936:
922:
910:
906:
901:
898:
883:
856:
843:
804:
792:
771:
757:
698:
643:
635:
627:
613:
601:
599:
592:
563:
549:
535:
521:
504:
490:
476:
453:
405:
368:
318:
310:
299:
264:
260:
245:
235:
229:
224:
220:
187:
175:
172:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
131:
119:
109:
95:
87:
52:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1138:and likely
972:LiveJournal
707:online chat
348:LiveJournal
230:Speedy keep
192:Mike Rosoft
1243:Ncohafmuta
1105:Correction
826:newsgroups
762:Ncohafmatu
412:<*: -->
274:JohnDBuell
102:<*: -->
1217:Elsewhere
1148:LambdaMOO
1089:zoophilia
1059:Geek Code
781:listings.
774:zoophilia
467:FCYTravis
356:wikipedia
1380:Zetawoof
1335:notable.
1332:cybersex
1324:zoophile
1187:UNaXcess
1109:Zetawoof
1055:zoophile
1048:wikicity
890:wikicity
813:UNaXcess
789:itself).
618:Turnstep
407:Shazaam!
352:blogspot
346:such as
97:Shazaam!
1410:Falerin
1367:Zordrac
1359:Mamnuts
1127:Zordrac
1093:Zordrac
1068:Zordrac
1034:Zordrac
1020:Zordrac
1002:PhilipO
990:Zordrac
976:Zordrac
960:talkers
925:Zordrac
913:Mamnuts
850:Zordrac
805:Comment
796:Zordrac
748:Zordrac
685:Zordrac
675:Zordrac
665:Zordrac
628:Comment
604:Zordrac
576:Zordrac
564:Comment
554:Zordrac
540:Zordrac
536:Comment
526:Zordrac
522:Comment
512:Zordrac
505:Comment
495:Zordrac
481:Zordrac
454:Comment
438:Zordrac
385:Zordrac
377:soapbox
369:Comment
361:Zordrac
323:talkers
319:Comment
246:Comment
136:PhilipO
58:Unction
53:Ξxtreme
1376:Delete
1355:Amnuts
1251:Amnuts
1237:ew-too
1227:ew-too
1201:Ew-too
1081:Hobbes
1077:Update
917:Amnuts
886:talker
817:ew-too
758:Update
731:ew-too
729:, and
703:talker
699:Update
589:WP:WEB
572:WP:WEB
550:Update
491:Update
477:Update
304:Piquan
265:Delete
261:Verify
188:Delete
132:Delete
88:Delete
1398:Peyna
1393:humor
1305:Virus
1203:code.
1193:code.
1140:Merge
902:Crypt
785:time.
16:<
1406:Keep
1388:Keep
1343:BDSM
1328:BDSM
1283:and
1215:aka
1173:MUSH
1155:here
1136:Keep
1063:Geek
970:and
947:and
939:MUSH
937:The
737:and
647:here
614:Keep
379:for
350:and
337:and
329:and
327:MUDs
300:Keep
213:and
68:blah
46:keep
1357:or
1144:MOO
968:ICQ
830:ICQ
824:or
822:IRC
335:ICQ
331:IRC
1396:)
1279:,
966:,
836:,
832:,
725:,
721:,
717:,
713:,
591::
410:-
404:-
383:.
325:,
209:,
100:-
94:-
90:--
72:}
1253:.
1159:♠
1157:…
1152:∴
1146:(
651:♠
649:…
644:∴
63:ł
61:{
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.