Talk:The Alphabet of Manliness

Untitled

http://alphabetofmanliness.com/ <<< That should answer the most. DJ John 19:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Seller list

This page disagrees with the maddox page, which says that he reached the number 1 spot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.137.77 (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

A citation was needed for the part that stated that the book shipped early and I added it, but I'm not sure if it was written in a proper format. Please correct it if something needs to be changed. KSava 19:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon seem to be shipping the orders early. The UK release wasn't due till June 30, 2006, but mine was delivered today. dbalsdon 15:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cover of the Book

I included information about the new newsletter. Delete that when it is sent out and someone should out up the cover of the book when it is revealed. 24.185.195.4 22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It is also said to be like an extended post on Maddox's site The Best Page in the Universe." This isn't true, the style is supposed to be different.

I formatted the page

I changed everything around so it is easier to understand and a little more neutral. +Johnson 03:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sales

This book is currently (the evening of 3/28/06) listed #1 in sales on Amazon.com. That seems to be of some notability, but I don't track the list, so I don't know how easily books move up and down the list. Maddox has a good number of fans, so it would be expected for the book to sell fairly well. 66.41.212.243 03:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible POV

Maddox' book is not at all like his website. There is no gratuitous insulting of people, places, or things. There are funny tips and occasionally a rant or two about the subjects. Very funny, but not what fans of Maddox are used to.

Besides being someone's personal opinion, the second statement of the above statement is just plain wrong. Maddox insults women in every single chapter of the book, not to mention the smaller rants directed towards children, old people, and other groups.

Yes, cool, but neither one of you signed your comments, so I guess your input doesn't really count. Going to buy this book tomorrow.. --84.249.252.211 00:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool off, man. Just because they didn't sign their comments doesn't mean their input doesn't count.67.142.130.19 17:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verbatim quoted passages

I think the lengthy book jacket passage ibn probably copyrighted and in any case, the entire text of it is unecessary to get the flavor of the book. The verbatim quotes of disgust from the reverse cover book jacket are too long as well. BabuBhatt 01:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK Censorship

I'm currently finding out about who was to blame about the Censorship, although Maddox said this "The UK version had to be censored.. it's about 4 pages shorter than the US version, with a few regional changes as well." I've emailed Penguin Books and am awaiting a response ==ShadowmanX 17:26, 14 July 2006 (GMT)

It's going to be tough to cite a personal email you've recieved from them, and still pass muster as a verifiable source. To me it doesn't really matter if Penguin is behind the cuts. Europe is as touchy about violence as the US is about nudity. Had it been released in the original form, it might have been banned all over europe for "advocating violence against women" or some other such nonsense. I think the article would be fine pointing out simply that the references to certain violent acts and images are removed for the UK printing. We don't need to pass the blame to Penguin. TimCBaker 19:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it makes me feel a whole lot better. Guess we shall have to cut the Penguin factor out.--ShadowmanX 02:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know it's funny, but I could have sworn I added a section to the page about UK censorship an efficient three or so weeks before it was released but it was deleted. Was this purely because of lack of cited evidence?

Is it really legal for the government to censor this book, or is this self-censorship done by the publisher? Wouldn't this fall under a "Freedom of Speech" law? --Sean WI 02:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got it from Penguin themselves, But I am waiting to actually be allowed to quote them on the Email I got. --ShadowmanX 22:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the UK, they don't have a First Amendment like we do. But the US does regulate porn and obscenity. Also, I don't know the rules, but I imagine that they can censor books like they do with other media - magazines, video games, and television. Shadowman - could you try to get them to make a press release on their website regarding the changes? Hbdragon88 18:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to release some of the Email, It should be alright to do so.

" I'm afraid we have indeed had to remove some pages for the UK edition. In 2005 the British Government introduced new legislation in an amendment to the Crimes Act - and the advice given to us by our Legal Director was that, unfortunately, a small handful of pages from the US edition of Alphabet could be interpreted as falling foul of this new legislation. It was a tough call, and I was extremely reluctant to make any cuts of course. But given other legal cases currently being taken against writers, artists and musicians in the wake of the amendments to the Crime Act, our Legal Director felt unable to green light the publication. I'm afraid it came down to a choice of no UK Alphabet or a minimally cut UK Alphabet - and after some serious agonising, Maddox thankfully gave us the go ahead to publish in slightly reduced form." Now some other fucker can put that into the page, since I'm sick of Wikitards. ShadowmanX 01:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Maddoxbook.PNG

Image:Maddoxbook.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else dislike the photo?

As I said, the photo is rather classless and a random photo of Maddox making an obscene gesture does nothing for the article, I can understand it on Maddox_(writer) but here it is rather out of placePstanton 04:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Alphabet of Manliness/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Short and needs expansion, but it's not a bad article. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050325084450/http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=book to http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=book

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]