Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shii (talk | contribs) at 21:47, 23 May 2006 (primary sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives: Archive 1 Archive 2

New image

I believe this image is copyright free and is appropriate for use in this article. Erwin

File:Sherrod babylons.jpg

File:Sherrod webcam.jpg
Wow! Sexiest guy I've ever seen! --Tony SidawayTalk 19:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No one has still said why we need a picture of the creator of EA anyway. Its not important to the article. A screen shot of EA would be more appropriate to the article then a picture of Sherrod.--Azathar 19:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative to an image in the article is to create a separate article on de Grippo, which I don't believe anyone is advocating. Erwin
That might be the best thing to do, though I don't advocate it either.--Azathar 05:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure how this image is "copyright free." --Badlydrawnjeff 03:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's Sharrod DeGrippo's "Fat Girl Angle Shot". The image we had before had explicit permission from girlvinyl.com when it was taken (as long as we gave link back) - and it was a bit more of an example of what she really looks like. I find that the image above doesn't show the world for who she really is. She's overweight, not sexy -- No offense, I'm overweight too, but I'm not going to angle shot myself to look like a model for wikipedia.. --Depakote 05:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


You may be right. Wikipedia should not encourage vanity, and the image does:

a) portray her as more attractive than she really is,
b) fails to show the usual goth gear, and
c) 50% of the image is cleavage, thus it may be indecent based upon wikipedia's pornography rules.

Based on this new discovery, I will attempt to find a new, copyvio free image for inclusion in the article. Erwin

Why does this article need a picture of DeGrippo to begin with. No one has really justified the inclusion of one. Its not important to the article!!! Truly justify it (beyond basic curiosity) or just Give it up people.--Azathar 21:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected

Protected for ages and ages and ages. Enough! --Tony SidawayTalk 19:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From RfC

I don't see anything wrong with having an article on ED on Wikipedia. I did edit some things to make it sound less promotional and to conform with the Manual of Style a little more; not knowing anything about the actual subject, I can't comment on the factuality of the article. I apologise if I edited any pertinent information out. Hermione1980 23:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Important note

This article should really be much, much longer. There are so many other things to say about this site. Someone definitely take soem time and fully research all of the intricacies of this article ASAP! --Bouquet 05:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


anti-wikipedia text policy

I removed [1] the text that said users could not take Wikipedia text and put it on ED. It's not a policy there. I've copied text from a Wikipedia article and after funnyifying it put it in an ED article - and front paged the resulting article. SchmuckyTheCat 21:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From: [2]
According to the edit page, GNU Free Documentation License, but I don't know if thats just been left by accident.--Elvis 12:48, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't link to TOW. That's strike one. Maybe it's strike two. Anyway, it's a strike and you don't have any balls. --Banbot talk to Banbot 13:06, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
The link in question was the text of the GFDL for reference on a talk page, I'll put the text back in.--ElvisThePrince 14:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The personal policy of a single admin does not a policy on ED make. There isn't any policy regarding such a thing. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is "TOW"? --Bouquet 20:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think from the point of view of user(s) who have been or threatened with ban, by an (quite active) admin, who has not then be contradicted by anyone else then this would appear to be a pretty accurate description of "unoffical policy", the affected user cares not if no ones else bans him because "There isn't any policy regarding such a thing" if he is already banned by the one admin who does, if the shoe fits.........--ElvisThePrince 15:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure how any of it is relevant. There's no policy like that. In fact, there are really only two hard-set policies at ED: be funny, and don't use real-names for non-famous people. That's it. Is WP going to deal in fact, or just what people who have been messing with this article percieve as fact? --Badlydrawnjeff 16:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, wouldn't it be more relevent to document ACTUAL POLICIES, first, as opposed to arguing over the minutia of possible UNOFFICIAL policies? --Bouquet 20:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ACTUAL defacto policy, at least two editors have noted it, the original author and myself, (oh BTW thanks for WP:AGF "just what people who have been messing with this article percieve as fact", especialy given that I'm not the one that has been blocked over 3RR on this very article), but we deal in sources here, I have provided a link (from ED:Talk:Main Page no less) where someone is quite clearly threatened by an ED admin for linking to wikipedia, with not a squeak from anyone else on ED contradicting him, likewise SchmuckyTheCat from ED has said that he has posted reworked content and not been banned of course what he failed to mention is that as he an his supporter Badlydrawnjeff are admins on ED [3] so a ban would be ineffectual anyway and wether we like to admit it or not admins always have more leeway no matter what site we are talking about.--ElvisThePrince 12:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And this changes the fact that there's no policy regarding the use of WP text how? I've in fact mentioned my work on ED in other areas, I don't really keep it a secret because it's not possible to do so. However, when you have two admins who are telling you how things operate, you still seem to want to disagree. With that, I'm really not at all sure what to tell you. --Badlydrawnjeff 12:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I fail to mention I'm an admin there. I also fail to mention that I've banned the banbot that made the threats. The policy doesn't exist and agressive admins can be cut down to size. SchmuckyTheCat 15:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
from ED:Encyclopedia_Dramatica:Block_log:

03:32, 13 Mar 2005 SchmuckyTheCat blocked "aussieintn" with an expiry time of 1 (settle down beavis. 1 minute should do.) Keep going I can still see the top of your head--ElvisThePrince 23:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

M ost new users recieve this template in their talk page when they start editing. If we have anything close to a hard-set policy, this is it. Now, if you can find any evidence that there's some anti-wikipedia copying policy in there, or that there's any "unofficial policy" to indicate it, then you may have a point. Unfortunately for you, there is not. No policy. None. Sorry to break it to you. --badlydrawnjeff 12:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Already indicated above however again:
  1. According to the edit page, GNU Free Documentation License, but I don't know if thats just been left by accident.--Elvis 12:48, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Don't link to TOW. That's strike one. Maybe it's strike two. Anyway, it's a strike and you don't have any balls. --Banbot talk to Banbot 13:06, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC) From ED:Talk:Main Page diff:[4]
  1. Also: As of this moment, cuntpastes from TOW are a bannable offense as far as I am concerned. They don't have any funny articles; why would we ever steal one?--hardvice (talk) 21:36, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC) hist: [5]
Re:DCMA request it was a request it was NEVER properly resolved eithier way if Wikipedia or Uncyclopedia was "authorised", until it's PROVEN it remains a claim, Fact. Deal. With. Numpty. I have however reworded it slightly. --ElvisThePrince 12:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note the words "as far as I'm concerned." That's his personal opinion, and is not a policy, official or unofficial, of ED. But, you know, keep ignoring us, that's fine. The DMCA request was possibly never resolved, but factually speaking, the item uploaded onto this site was not removed because it was "claimed" one way or the other, but because of direct language on the site specifically forbidding these sorts of things. I can't make it any more clearer. Regardless, I've fixed the information AGAIN, and maybe this re-wording will be for your liking. I'm rather sick of correcting someone who doesn't seem to want to listen to people directly involved, so maybe this will end this nonsense instead of continuing to waste my time. --badlydrawnjeff 13:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There that wasn't too hard ;-)--ElvisThePrince 16:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

removal of third paragraph of conflict section

* Encylopædia Dramatica itself is not immune to complaints stemming from copyright issues or image use due to content such as [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Talk:Amalea this] and from the use of individual LiveJournal users' content directly or through archive sites [http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Mt2Pd9hdW74J:webpages.charter.net/berthiaumes/+&hl=en&client=], [http://ginnysanchez.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=71] [http://www.ginnysanchez.com/nucleus/index.php?catid=5&blogid=1].

I removed this. It's just a big run-on sentence. In the first part, ED does not claim any immunity, and of course any website can be sued or threatened over copyright violations. In the second part, it is just a mouthpiece for grudgery, as the links provided make obvious. It is also just repeating what other parts of the article already clearly state: that ED makes fun of people who then get pissed off and threaten them. SchmuckyTheCat 19:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You make a decent point, but after looking at this again I find it beneficial to put here. I find it as sort of a POV when an admin at a website decides to remove truthful statements from the article. If your saying the site your are "representing" (apparently) is a site that messes with people, it's worth stating the reaction people other than the admin's have to the website. --Depakote 13:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph already says there are conflicts. What makes this beneficial, the specific links? SchmuckyTheCat 13:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! What makes stating any conflict about Encyclopedia Dramatica beneficial? Well, this third paragraph simply complements the second one very nicely, for one! I find it worth mentioning that Encyclopedia Dramatica has been in situations like this itself. Perhaps what you are looking for is an edit of the third paragraph instead of a deletion -- because this is a pretty good point. --Depakote 14:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it's not even a notable point about the website. Any even partway popular website will have DMCA infractions here and there, and it expands the conflicts section even further. Considering your addition of what appears to be a fake website in your latest revert, along with your continued appearance of a lack of a good faith assumption on the part of Schmucky and myself, I'm forced to question why you think it's at all relevant for the ED site any more than it would be for any other. --badlydrawnjeff 15:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article

I've heard somewhere on WP that the correct name is "Encyclopedia Dramatica", not "Encyclopædia Dramatica". If this is the case, should we move the article to a page with that title? Hermione1980My RfA 16:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's æ. It's not æ when it's not possible to display it or too lazy to use a keyboard layout with the æ character. Load the website, top left of the screen (just like wikipedia) is the logo and name, with æ SchmuckyTheCat 19:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DMCA

A DMCA notification is just that - a notification. It's a letter to a service provider that their service is hosting images which the copyright-holder did not approve. It also isn't litigation AT ALL. Litigation for infringement can't be brought against wikipedia or uncyclopedia because they are protected by safe harbor as an ISP. The litigation would have to be brought to the uploader of the infringing image. I'll try to find out if the users who uploaded the pics are getting sued. --Price is right 17:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lock article again?

It's been months and still the same admins at Encyclopædia Dramatica are still editing this article. There is nothing wrong with with this but the following:

They are mentioning items which aren't worth being placed, but rather just in for the interest of the people who decide to place them there.
They are sensoring information on the woman Sherrod DeGrippo, still. The admins who keep editing this page consistently lie and claim that Sherrod DeGrippo is a man, despite overwhelming evidence (previously stated) that she is not.
Instead of allow for a brief, to the point article, the admins at this website are deciding to make this article into a huge "show off page" for Encyclopædia Dramatica.
The admins from ED seem to have alot of time on there hands, it doesn't take an hour after one of my edits for an admin from ED to stop in here and change information yet again, ruining an article which non-POV people should honestly be re-writing now. They are like linux zealots, they won't give up for the cause.

Is this grounds to lock the article again to prevent from editing by ED's editors? Or should we just let the department every company in to edit all the articles for their corporations too? --Depakote 04:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, since we happen to have admin privs at ED means that, even though we've been w/WP longer, we're unable to correct common error consistently added to the article. Of course, info on Sherrod DeGrippo, much of it being added being false, BTW, has no place here, but rather an article on Sherrod which would never meet WP's notability standards. I personally would love to trim this article down quite a bit, but that won't happen either. As for "a lot of time on our hands," I have a job w/net access and I check my watchlist every 30 min or so.
You really need to stop with the veiled attacks on our character and our motives. Stop adding superfluous, and sometimes false, information, and people will stop editing it out. Is that so hard? --badlydrawnjeff 12:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article need a picture of Sherrod???

Why does this article need a picture of Sherrod? No one has ever stated a good reason why. Again, keep this article short and sweet. A brief mention of the name is all that is needed. While Depakote was gone (or while he/she stopped editing this article from September 27, 2005 - October 24, 2005, we didn't have to fight over this picture. So, again, why is an image fo this person important to the article? No one else thinks it is. Leave it out unless you can justify it and everyone can come to some sort of consensus on it.--Azathar 07:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me answer your question with a question. Why does the Microsoft Article in wikipedia have a picture of Bill Gates? It's available. You can't say that Sherrod DeGrippo isn't affiliated with this site because it's already been stated. A brief mentioning and a name isn't all that is needed, especially after many of the warnings and conspirings DeGrippo has now made on behalf of her website. Wiki or not, she's the owner, it's not like she's humble or anything either. So, there's the justification, if you don't like pictures like this, go mess with other articles. --Depakote 10:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Gates is notable outside of Microsoft. Sherrod DeGrippo is not notable outside of ED, and there aren't any public domain photos you could possibly use for this article anyways. --badlydrawnjeff 11:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been listed at the latest IfD listing, with a lot of sourcing for the fact that the image is a copyvio. --badlydrawnjeff 14:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you badlydrawnjeff. You hit it square on the nail. Bill Gates is known around the world. Until I joined ED, I had never heard of Sherrod, and actually, I hadn't heard of Sherrod until this article mentioned her. I have nothing against the picture particularly, I have something against putting a picture on a website when permission has specifically not been granted. Enough is enough Depakote. You have no consensus here. Leave it off the page please!--Azathar 17:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are sourcing random stuff saying it's a copyright violation -- but I think it would be cool if some of the visitors here could get a quick glimpse at what Sherrod DeGrippo looks like! Azathar, BadlyDrawnJeff, Schmuckythecat, neither of your opinions mean much to me considering your just another troll from the website. This isn't your article to control, most other people have just given up -- I'm not going to let this happen. Trust me, I have all the time in the world, not as much as DeGrippo, unfortunately. --Depakote 08:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I love being called a troll by a troll. Guess it takes one to know one. BTW, I've been a member of Wikipedia LONGER then I've been a member of ED. Get your facts straight before you accuse me of something. NO, its not my article to control, but, as you have quoted the rules of Wikipedia to me, let me quote to you, Consensus is the guideline here, not Depakote's way. Yeah, you may have alot of time, but others do to. If you want a picture of her, get consenus on it first. One, or possibly two, votes does not consensus make.--Azathar 07:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. --Price is right 17:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The image is appropriate because it is informative and also adds to the info about it being a 'goth' related website. Erwin
It's a goth related website? Since when? And BTW, there are no ED users "vandalizing" this entry, thank you very much. Your accusation is without much merit. --badlydrawnjeff 14:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That makes absolutely no sense at all. That's like saying wikipedia is a "goth" related website because it has a single article entitled 'goth'. --Price is right 02:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, I see. You're confusing the 'article of the day' on AE as the basis for the site. That's just their featured article for today... most likely due to halloween. --Price is right 02:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Goth, I always want to be a Goth LMAO! No, I am not a Goth, go and look at my picture, do I look like a Goth?!!!????!!!!????? I'm standing next to a sign for a boat in New Brunswick, Canada, I think that puts me as far away from Goth as possible lol.....--Azathar 07:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get the encyclopædia dramatica admins out of here!

Here is a copy of a convo I just had on my talk page.

Even a SysOP agrees that this article doesn't need an image of Sherrod. Now will you stop putting the image in Depakote?--Azathar 20:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's not the foundation wikipedia was founded upon.
Ok, you've baited me, what foundation do you feel that wikipedia was founded on? I've got to hear this.--Azathar 08:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_propaganda_machine, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground, Wikipedia:Make_articles_useful_for_readers. I myself am founded from a neutral POV - What does Encyclopedia Dramatica and Sherrod DiGreppo have to hide from me showing a picture? Funny, the Microsoft article can have picture(s) of Bill Gates, The Newgrounds website article can have pictures of Tom Fulp. So, what makes ED so special that it doesn't deserve to be represented by this? Isn't GirlVinyl/Sherrod DiGreppo a major focal point on the website?[6][7].

Also, while I'm at it, it wouldn't hurt to show that you, Azathar, are an avid member of the site, and a sysop/moderator. [8]. Doesn't wikipedia state that it doesn't accept it when you write about yourself? And you are writing about a site you represent. What does this cause? More POV!

And schmuckythecat is also an operator from the site. [9]

And badlydrawnjeff. [10]

Click here for a full list of them. These people are dangerous, hehe. They are experienced with wikis and will just love to drive us around in circles. It's not worth debating anymore. We need these people out of here.. We need to watch out and make sure they don't get sock puppets in too.

These people have been censoring almost ALL the edits I have been placing on ED for months. They refuse to stop. They formally claimed using the name of Sherrod DiGreppo is a PRIVACY violation, now, adding a little image of a person is apparently a COPYRIGHT violation, when there is clear evidence[11] that the woman gave permission to use this image. Are people allowed to just "withdraw" there permissions for us of an image? I think this should be respected, for the sake of Sherrod DiGreppo -- but at the same time, is it in the spirit of wikipedia for encyclopedic knowledge to just be ripped out of the books because someone "changed there mind"? That's like OJ Simpson's lawyers coming in one day on wikipedia and deleting evidence of stuff for "some reason we don't know" (be it a slight convenience to the person, or maybe something bigger). Someone help here -- what our are rights with this image? This image, mind you, was first taken before Sherrod put notices on her site[12] claiming all prior sayings were just a misnomer. Apparently these images were just for "personal use"... What personal use? For stalkers to download and awe at in there My Documents folder all day? Come on now.

I'de really appreciate it if an admin could help out here and clear this article from editing by people who show POV for encyclopedia dramatica. This has gone on for far too long and it's ridiculous. --Depakote 15:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So many leaps here, I'm not even sure how to address them all, but I'll try.
1) So you want to censor us because we know the site and spend time reverting the mistakes you make. How many times did you link to the fake Sherrod site again? How many copyvio images (I'll get back to that) have been uploaded for use here? No one here is writing about ourselves, and Sherrod/GirlVinyl doesn't edit this page, so your protest lacks merit. No one stops William Connolley from editing Global Warming, after all.
2) It was never agreed via consensus, but in the original IfD debate about the first Sherrod image (the one you took without permission from archive.org), I brought up the point that copyrights can change. After all, you can't make new copies of the Traveling Wilburys album even though someone made them before.
3) Speaking of images, every Sherrod image pulled thus far has been deleted due to copyvio issues. Her website explicitly doesn't allow us to use her images, and you can't scrape them off of MySpace or Archive.org or a cam site without permission, either. If an image is a copyvio, wikipedians have a responsibility to remove it, like it or not. I don't believe that an image of Sherrod/GV is necessary in this article, or remotely encyclopedic, and there are admins who agree with me, but a non-copyvio image won't be listed on IfD by me.
4) Calling us "dangerous" and attempting to remove us from the article makes me seriously consider opening an RfC. Not only have you continually bucked consensus, but you're walking a very fine line concerning personal attacks, and your continued uploading of copyvio images is disturbing, both to me personally and disruptive to the wiki as a whole.
5) Any ED admins (most, if not all of which, have a history here before ED) have been very good about leaving less-than-flattering commentary regarding the site in the article. There's plenty of stuff I think is fluff in this article, and I'm leaving it alone for balance's sake. Perhaps you should stop with that smear, too.
So please. Stop. Stop with the nonsense, stop with the continued disruption, and try to work WITH people instead of blindly ignoring what everyone's saying. --badlydrawnjeff 15:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depakote, I don't even know where to start with you. Take a look here first ED Admin List. Do you see my name there? Nope. BTW, before you say Azathar is a sock puppet, I use Azathar on a bunch of wiki's I am on (Beta Division InfoBase, FE Database, Wikipedia, Polaqu - D&D Campaign Setting, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Memory Alpha - A Star Trek Wiki, An RPG Wiki). I don't have another user name on any of them. Also, if you go and look at [my ED Contributions], you'll see that I am not "an avid member". I contribute more to wikipedia then I do to ED. Where I have I written about myself on wikipedia? NOWHERE except my User page, which I am allowed to there. I don't represent ED, nor have I ever said that I do. I have said, and I continue to say that am here making sure you don't violate some one's copyright permissions. Thats it. When you stop trying to add in picture, and you stop fighting over this article and leave it alone for others, I plan on doing the same, and going back to editing the other articles I am working on. And, you shoot yourself in the foot by linking to Wikipedia Guidelines. You're the one trying to promote Sherrod having a bigger role on the ED site, and you're the one who is making this a battleground when no one else see's a reason for a picture of Sherrod. Sherrod is NOT a major focal point of ED, go and look around, she's one Admin, and helped to found it, which is mentioned in the article here in wikipedia. Bill Gates is important to Microsoft, and your NewGrounds article is a red link. Depakote, get over yourself.--Azathar 18:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I got bored and did a edit count on you, you've only been editing on wikipedia since August 12, 2005, so your months of edits on the ED article doesn't wash. I've been a member here on wikipedia longer then you have, and for you to call for my removal from wikipedia because you don't like the fact that your incorrect edits are being re-edited, well, I read and edit a lot more then just this one article, and use wikipedia for research purposes as well. Stop being a jerk over this article and trying to change it to say how you want it. You have NO CONSENSUS!!!!! Get some consensus first, then come back and make your changes. And you know what else, I'll quote something else to you, since you like to quote wikipedia policy, you shouldn't edit on wikipedia unless you don't mind your edits to be mercilessly re-edited. You're just going to have to grow up and deal with it Depakote. I don't know how old you are, but you need to start acting a bit mroe mature and grown up and not ask for members to be removed because they are changing your edits. I have NEVER asked for you to be removed from wikipedia, no matter how much I disagree with your edits on this article.--Azathar 18:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You'd not also on his contribs that he only cares about this article and GNAA, where is contributions are also unappreciated. SchmuckyTheCat 18:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Azathar, SchmuckyTheCat and BadlyDrawnJeff. Well, I guess the problem can be seen right here. 3 ED sysops with extremely narrow minds, so it seems. 3/4 of this talk page is covered with edits and debates with ED admins. As I recall, most of this debating and bickering over ANYTHING was because of you. I don't edit that many other articles on wikipedia, why? Dealing with you guys is a handful as it is. --Depakote 00:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I AM NOT A ED SYSOP, Depakote!!!!!! Get it right!!!! I am only a member!! Not that I wouldn't mind being one, mind you, but I would also like to be an Admin here on Wikipedia too. And narrow mind, lol, sure, you know me so well to be making such baseless accusations. This bickering wouldn't be happening if you didn't make baseless edits on something you know next to nothing about. And do you think dealing with you is a walk thru the park???--Azathar 00:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. Calm down. Everyone, especially Azathar and Depakote, read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Depakote, read Wikipedia:Consensus: you are in the minority with the picture. It doesn't matter if those who disagree with you are from Encyclopedia Dramatica or the moon, if everyone disagrees with you (and, I myself disagree with you and I'm certainly not from ED), you need to acknowledge defeat and work to improve the article in other ways. Think it's POV? Make it NPOV. Pictures don't matter. Fanfiction.net doesn't have a picture of Xing Li, and that's a far more relevant example than Microsoft and Bill Gates. Please work together, guys. Hermione1980 00:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hermione1980. I am sorry that this conflict has gone on this far. But, I don't appreciate being called a troll, and though it wouldn't be a bad thing to be an ED Admin, I am not one, and I would like to see Mr. Depakote get his facts straight about me before he goes off and makes accusations like he has been.--Azathar 01:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hermione1980. I really thank you for giving me that consensus article -- It really helped clear some things up on my part. Currently -- I do not have the man power to overrule 3 admins/users from a website. I personally would like to apologize to you Azathar. You aren't a sysop and I have just been breezing by an accusing you of that. Regardless, there is no POV trying to be forced here. I am looking for help from people are aren't die-hard ED users to reach a more accurate Consensus. I agree with you too -- Pictures don't matter, but this article still has been censored (reverted edits, etc) by these people for far too long. --Depakote 05:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have, and I thank you for getting it right. As for the article being censored, I can't speak for the others who you are saying are censoring it, as my only concern here has been the inclusion of a picture that we didn't have permission to include (even if we did once upon a time, we don't anymore). As an amateur photographer, I definately understand that people should defend their copyright and their property, whether it's the Mona Lisa or a personal picture.--Azathar 17:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Depakote has gone and tried to get another Admin to come and take a look at the ED article to try and force his POV on it [13].--Azathar 01:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eek! My moves are being stalked! --Depakote 05:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when you are going around to Admins trying to get me banned from Wikipedia, of course I am going to go and say my side of the story.--Azathar 17:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you find where I stated I was trying to ban you, or at least a place where I specifically mentioned you to the admin? --Depakote 23:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, besides the fact that this secion is called Get the encyclopædia dramatica admins out of here!, lets see, you state: "Click here for a full list of them. These people are dangerous, hehe. They are experienced with wikis and will just love to drive us around in circles. It's not worth debating anymore. We need these people out of here.. We need to watch out and make sure they don't get sock puppets in too." (I've bolded the relevant section.) You may not state it implicitly, but you are certainly implying that myself and others who are also members of ED shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. I would call it a request to ban us. And as much as you have agrevated me in regards to this article, I have never even implied that you should no longer be a member of wikipedia, I have only stated that your editing should be done elsewhere in wikipedia.--Azathar 05:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Outside links"

Okay, I'm thinking we should remove most of those links per Hermoine's rec. The uncyclopedia entry is just that - a parody entry that really has nothing to do with ED outside of their own typical handling of articles. Girlvinyl.com also has nothing to do with ED on its own. It's simply the website of ED's creator, and is irrelevant to ED itself. I say keep 'em removed unless there's some legitimate reason that they're relevant. --badlydrawnjeff 18:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • and the inline "reference-style" links as well. SchmuckyTheCat 18:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the extraneous links, does this article need links to ED and other sites. It's just adverts for ED, and Wikipedia isn't suppose to be a list of advertisments.--Azathar 18:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I have no real issue with, say, the inline link to the statistics page to act as a reference, although I wouldn't protest if they all disappeared, either. A link to ED at the bottom, however, is appropriate due to the need to actually link to the site in the article about the site. --badlydrawnjeff 18:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unacceptable; we have already tried to placate the ED users by deleting the image, it now appears that they are just trolling by raising disputes with every facet of the article. I will wait the customary 24 hours then rv if no one else has. Erwin
    • Every facet? How about you instead explain why the article needs to have a) a link to a third party site that is not a serious site, and b) a link to an ED user? Does that mean I can link my webpage on the bottom? How about James Lee's site? Mediacrat has a LiveJournal, he's tangentally related to the creation of ED, wanna link there, too? What's the line, Erwin? --badlydrawnjeff 19:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have persistently taken the extreme position and refused to make any concessions. I havn't seen you contribute to the article, your only contribution is to revert everything so no progress is made. In answer, a: because said article is cited as an example, b: because Sherrod is the creator of the website. Erwin
      • I have to agree with Erwins comment too. I think he is very right in this matter. I have been editing this article for a long while and every time I come visit there is another revert or edit by BadlyDrawnjeff/Schmuckythecat. The article isn't going to be hurt my an image of Sherrid DiGreppo, neither by links (as long as the proper description is given of them, imo). --Depakote 23:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Assume good faith, Mr. Walsh. Nobody's trolling. Hermione1980 19:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Extreme position? My position is that this article has too much fluff to begin with. I've added nothing to it because I feel there's nothing that needs to be added, most of my reverts come from removing copyvio photos and fixing false information, mostly added by yourself and Depakote.
        • Admin's keep deleting this image to avoid trouble, but in reality, do people have the right to change copyright on an image after they give permission for it to be used? The last sysop that removed the image claimed the image was a "troll". Yet, if that image was a troll, is that assuming good faith? --Depakote 23:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Depakote, the owner of the image's copyright has the legal right to change their copyright permissions, even after giving permission. Images aren't in the same boat as software. Go and look it up on the US Gov't website regarding copyrights and photographs.--Azathar 05:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Azathar. Can you please cite where you have found this information for us? Thank you. --Depakote 14:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You could finally get around to indicating why you believe copyright can't change, instead. We've only been looking for that information for a few months now. --badlydrawnjeff 15:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one making legal accusations, so the burden of proof is on you. You have been making these for along time, but have been completely unable to provide even the slightest bit of evidence for them, from which one can only conclude that you have no evidence to support your claims. Furthermore, it is very disinguous to keep pasting a link to her updated copyright page without also noting it was a retroactive change. Nathan J. Yoder 07:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the copyright itself changed [the copyright holder remained the same], just the liscense terms, which the owner has the ability to do as they see fit. Especially with one as non-legally binding as "here, take this if you want." Maybe "you" didn't include the world? Was it specific to a certain person? Either way, it is irrelevent. --Price is right 18:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No one was saying the copyright holder changed, this was about the license. The owner can't retroactively change the terms of a license unless the license itself explicitly allows that. What if Linus Torvalds suddenly said "hmm, I don't think Linux should be released under the GPL anymore, you can't use it"? It doesn't work like that. Being informal doesn't make it non-legally-binding, otherwise oral contracts wouldn't be valid. Don't try to argue semantics, "you" clearly referred to anyone who could read that statement. They could have argued the image shouldn't have been included because it wasn't relevent to the article, but for some strange reason they decided to use the legally invalid copyright route. Nathan J. Yoder 18:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What ppl also need to remember is that licensing rights are different for images versus software. You're comparing apples and oranges by comparing software to images. Sherrod has the right to change who is allowed permission to use her images as long as she took the picture and owns them. If you really want to have the right to put a picture of her up here, you would need to find her, and take your own picture of her. But then, you'd probably be subject to some sort of stalking law or laws. I can see the Headline now: Wikipedia arrested for stalking Vegas Computer user. Wikipedian: "I only wanted to put a picture of her on an article, ot make it more valid."--Azathar 04:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You keep making the assertion that they are different, but haven't provided any evidence to back it up. Following your logic, everyone who has released an image under the GFDL for Wikipedia can retroactively revoke the GFDL licensing and force it to be removed from Wikipedia. Of course, there is nothing under the law that supports their ability to do that and so far no one has presented a shred of evidence that you can do that. Your stalking analogy is ridiculous, because this isn't about putting up a picture without permission (which would be the case for someone who didn't get a model release), she GAVE permission, she just tried retroactively revoking the permission. Besides, I would think that the legal experts working for the FSF and the creative commons who have created licenses for images would know better than you whether or not you can retroactively revoke licenses like that. They wouldn't bother creating those licenses for images if you could do that. Nathan J. Yoder 18:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither has Depakote or you about the fact that it is allowed, whether or not she has changed the permission on the website. This is one of those things where we're going to have to agree to disagree. Since you seem to know so much about the law, why don't you support some of your assertions.--Azathar 20:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The previous version of her website did say anyone could take and use it, that is an uncontestable FACT. You're forgetting that the burden of proof is on YOU, since you're the one making legal accusations and are going against the wisdom of copyright lawyers who have designed open content licenses for images. You might as well start suggesting you can just back out of a contract just because you changed your mind, and then proceed to place the burden of proof for that on everyone except yourself. Nathan J. Yoder 21:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Long term consensus is that we don't want a picture. So discussing it further is pointless. SchmuckyTheCat 01:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now, a) Said article is not really cited as an example. Uncyclopedia is often compared to ED, and there's a wikilink to Uncyclopedia already. b) So what? --badlydrawnjeff 20:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the links out. Hermione1980 19:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let them stay - I don't see how it hurts. A link to an uncyclopedia article on ED? I think this isn't only good, it's a point of interest. Uncyclopedia and ED could be considered competitors, and in a sense their "fun" rivalry can sort of be shown in that way. --Depakote 23:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. I don't really see the harm in doing this... --Peter
  • Keep the personal homepage link - I just put it back in, since it is relevent. If someone doesn't have a wikipedia article, and they are mentioned prominently in one, it makes sense to link to the most official source of information on them, their website. Justifying the self-referential userpage link makes no sense at all. Not only does it provide no useful information and not only is it a violation of a guideline, it is also a strange double standard. If you're going to exclude a link to the website, then logically it makes sense to not include a link to the user page either, since that's "not related to ED." Nathan J. Yoder 18:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ED Site Screen Capture

A screen cap is a fine idea for this article. It should not be a backdoor to placing images of Sherrod, a screencap of her user page is not representative of the site. The text on it is conversational, not parody/satire/funny, etc, as the article represents the site. SchmuckyTheCat 20:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that a screencap of the front page/mainpage would be a logical photo, moreso than a specific page. --badlydrawnjeff 20:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"It should not be a backdoor to placing images of Sherrod" - until now you've been hiding behind the copyright issue for deleting the images; now the issue has been resolved you inadvertently admit the real situation. Erwin
Yeah, it is funny how the image of Sherrod is mentioned again. Screen Capture is a nice idea. I have a question -- would it be right to put up the "ED" logo under fair use? Or is it not under the right category? --The Great Gatsby of ShriLanka Sun Muya Seka 22:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The screencap of the front page looks good in the article, and is more appropriate (and legal) too. Good compromise.--Azathar 05:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA

Apparently, we have another issue with a lack of facts. I have seen no evidence to back up the claim that the founder of ED is part of GNAA, or that "at least 10" members of GNAA frequently use ED. Hopefully, Erwin can back up this claim or cease adding it to the article. --badlydrawnjeff 21:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I too do not beleive the founder of ED is a GNAA member at this point. --The Great Gatsby of ShriLanka Sun Muya Seka 22:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Appropriateness

Is a picture of a gay furry orgy really appropriate? It's obviously intended for the sole aim of shock value, at least for the purposes of encyclopedia dramatica, and all it really does is make this page offensive as well.

Ziiv 23:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AgreeI don't see any necessity to keeping it. --Bouquet 00:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what that is? I wondered. Remove it. Hermione1980 01:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this more notable than LJ Drama?

What I don't get is why there's more written here than on the LJ Drama page. Considering that the Encyclopaedia Dramatica site was a spin off of LJ Drama, I would have thought that there'd be more interest in the original (and that it's more notable). Perhaps the fact that Encyclopaedia Dramatica is wikipedia-style is why we've got extra comments?

Also note that a large proportion of the vandalism to this page was done by the founders of LJ Drama, Jameth and Hepkitten! LOL! That's so hilarious! Why don't we just have a wikipedia page devoted to them as the worst vandals on wikipedia? 203.122.225.241 00:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopædia Dramatica's fame has grown leaps and bounds past anything LD Drama ever had. SchmuckyTheCat 03:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you mean is that LJ Drama is no longer popular after all of their users got suspended from LiveJournal, so they had to think of something better to do. 203.122.225.241 12:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I can look up plenty of LJD users without suspended accounts. Where do you get your information? --badlydrawnjeff 13:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you don't know a thing about this, badlydrawnjeff, and suggest you are a troll.

LJ Drama users suspended:

Also there are a large number that were suspended and unsuspended and so forth:

The list goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on and on ad infinitum.

I think that you're a bit of a moron if you don't realise that, or even question it, and it makes you unqualified to edit here. 203.122.225.241 14:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're simply not reading what you said yourself. "All?" I know, again, plenty who have not been suspeded, are not suspended, never were suspended. You want to make absolute statements like that, I will call you out on them.
You're currently violating WP:Assume Good Faith and WP:No Personal Attacks. Please keep this in mind while you continue to edit. --badlydrawnjeff 17:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate for deletion again?

I noticed in the history section that Encyclopaedia Dramatica was nominated for deletion 3 times, with it being deleted twice, and yet on the third occasion it was for some reason reinstated. Whilst it is a notable site, and uses the wiki engine, I question whether it is encyclopaedic to have this site on Wikipedia. After all, Encyclopaedia Dramatica's own mission statement is to act as a parody - in other words, to lie about things. The contents of their web site are largely false and misleading, and any references to that web site are likely to be similarly false and misleading. The added fact that the founders of Encyclopaedia Dramatica have vandalised wikipedia (including this page) and have a mission statement to continue to vandalise wikipedia suggests that it is a very bad idea to have this article listed. I think that it would greatly damage the reputation of wikipedia, and prevent it from being able to be used as an accurate source of information.

I would have put another AFD tag in the article, only I think that some discussion needs to take place first. As an alternative to deletion, it could be that the majority of the content of this article be deleted. Legal action taken by girlvinyl against wikipedia for using a photo of her in this article suggests strongly that Encyclopaedia Dramatica themselves do not wish for this article to remain. 203.122.225.241 12:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established, no need to burden AfD AGAIN. --badlydrawnjeff 13:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I question your integrity, given the quality of your edits here. 203.122.225.241 14:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith, Mister Anon. My edits are designed to keep the article factual, and nothing else. The notability is established. If you want to waste everyone else's time with the AfD, that's your decision, but it's not going to get you anywhere. --badlydrawnjeff 14:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What the Encyclopaedia Dramatica users want is to piss people off for no particular reason. The site is notable, and relevant, and sim,ply because it might "damage wikipedias reputation" is hardly a good reason to delete: Wikipedia embraces freedom of information, including information on the hazards and limits of the Wiki concept. The fact that Wikipedia has remained so secure and trustworthy despite vandalism from the people at ED can only bolster Wikipedias reputation. This article is a good peice of both Internet and Wikipedia history. We should not be deleting things just for occasionally reflecting poorly on the Internet.
Just stop nominating deletion, user 203.122.225.241: it's becoming a form of vandalism in itself. If you would like to question badlydrawnjeff's integrity, i would certainly question your motives in trying to perpetuate this ridiculous cycle... but then, that'd be rude.
--Dissembly on 10:07am, 28th Feb 2006

Assuming good faith?

Considering the blatant vandalism of this page by the founders of Encyclopaedia Dramatica, and others associated with it, I think that it is foolish to assume good faith on this kind of article.

I should say that I misread the reference to Mediacrat. On LiveJournal, the discussion about Mediacrat was purely LJ Drama-driven, and was not independently based (i.e. non-LJD users who were involved it were brought to it by LJD users). As it was talking about the wikipedia deletion of the mediacrat article, I cannot speak, so I will refrain from commenting. However, I find it highly unlikely that any protests could have been made about it that were not in some way based on LJD. I find that to be a ludicruous suggestion, in fact. Mediacrat's story was a Live Journal Drama invention, created by the_passives, and advertised by jameth. Without their work, there is no doubt that the Mediacrat story would not have existed. It was a clear example of a drama that was not just reported on by LJ Drama, but was actually created by them. Mediacrat had, prior to the controversy, kept his LiveJournal for 5 years previous to that with no problems whatsoever with any users. Suggesting that this is in any way independent of LJ Drama is naive to the max.

However, back to the original point, it has been proven, through Jameth (co-founder of both Encyclopaedia Dramatica and LJ Drama), Hepkitten (owner and founder of LJ Drama) and girlvinyl (admin of LJ Drama and owner and founder of Dramatica) that Encyclopaedia Dramatica was a direct spin off by LJ Drama. Specifically, it was created by high ranking LJ Drama admins in order to perpetrate LJ Drama stories and pretend that they were real articles.

You also should note the continual reference to the word "parody" in both LJ Drama and Encyclopaedia Dramatica's pages. Their content is FALSE. It is not intended to be accurate, and is not accurate. Therefore, suggesting such things as that independent Live Journal users were upset at Mediacrat with no influence from LJ Drama, using as your source either LJ Drama or Encyclopaedia Dramatica articles is insufficient validation. You cannot say such a thing. I have looked through all of the logs on Live Journal (an original source) about the controversy, and there is no doubt whatsoever that it was entirely created by LJ Drama, explicitly by the_passives and jameth. 203.122.225.241 17:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) No one is claiming that the "mediacrat" flap wasn't an invention by folks associated w/LJD currently. As I am not a member of said LJD crew and only know about mediacrat via what I've read, I can't detail what went into the mediacrat discussion, the voicemails, etc. With that said, when it attained enough notoriety that people attempted to get it listed on Wikipedia, it was more than popular enough at that point to get non-LJD input. Thus, when you claim that it was "mostly" LJD folks, or "very few" outside of LJD, I don't see evidence to suggest that.
2) "It has been proven...that ED was a direct spin off by LJD." Proven where? Did LJD folks create ED? Absolutely, and that was noted in the article before you got here. Was it created ONLY for LJ Drama? Obviously not. You may want to pay a visit to ED sometime.
3) The use of the word "parody" is limited to - you guessed it - parody. Not everything on ED is false, such as the mediacrat stuff, the article on Scott Stapp being punked, and other various internet memes and LJ stuff. Now, if you were to go to, say, the article on the Civil War or Dinosaurs, that'd be parody. Surely, you can tell the difference.
Now, said "evidence," I hope, will be presented in due time. Hopefully a dingo hasn't stole it from your Aussie computer. --badlydrawnjeff 17:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive inline links to ED

I'm unhappy with all the links to ED within the page text. Do we really need links to Jameth and mediacrat's User pages on ED? I changed the links that pointed to Wikipedia User pages to point to ED User pages, per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, but I'm not convinced they're necessary. We also don't need to link to ED's statistics page just to say how many hits they've had, I don't think. Thoughts? Hermione1980 22:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The link to the ED statistics would be a pretty stnadard inline footnote style "source" link. The rest should probably go. SchmuckyTheCat 03:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contreversial (spelling?)

I was going to put in "bigoted" instead of contreversial since that's more accurate IMO, but it's likely that a revert war would have followed from that. Karmafist 15:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only reason I can see for you changing it to "bigoted" is the fact that you look like you have trouble spelling controversial --IICATSII 17:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You actually have it right. They are more bigoted than controversial, are the home of ageist's, sexist's, and other -ist's and -ism's. Really, I don't understand why anyone would go to their page. Their arguements are flawed at best, and lies at worst Christopher

  • Perception is rarely fact, especially in a case like this. Sour grapes? And how are you not seeing why/how people visit the site? Wouldn't people of all the traits you ascribe to the userbase flock together? --Alex-jon 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their arguements are flawed at best, and lies at worst" - It's a parody website -- IICATSII 21:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Personal attack removed] 220.237.218.98 10:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I think wikifur could be a secondary source on this article. DyslexicEditor 04:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know . . . I'm not sure our article really adds much, and it is written by a group of people who have reason to dislike the site, even with our NPOV policy. GreenReaper 15:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As this article is still devoid of reliable sources two months after the AfD, I merged what could be verified into LiveJournal. Ashibaka tock 04:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site itself is a primary source. Losing a VfD and turning around and making the article a redirect is not ok. SchmuckyTheCat 06:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our usual rule is that site's can't be sources for themselves, isn't it? Wouldn't that make this whole page original research? Aren't we supposed to be a tertiary source? Don't get me wrong; I like Æ, but I don't understand how we aren't appying much looser standards than usual here. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the key point is verifiability. We would not use ED as a secondary source for subjects written about on ED. ED is obviously a parody site. But ED is a primary source for our article on ED. If a statement is made "ED tells its writers not to be unfunny." and we cite an ED policy page that says so, then it is verifiable. Examination of a primary source is not original research unless you are making novel new claims from the examination. This is true whether your primary source is a website or the Declaration of Independence. SchmuckyTheCat 21:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By that standard, would absolutely any website be a fair topic for an article here, whether or not it has any notability outside of itself? What's to keep all the webcruft out? I ask because I found my way here after talking about AlmightLOL on WP:DRV. If it can serve as the only souce for itself, why not let it in? Am I making sense? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability is not a substitute for notability. Apples/Oranges, etc. SchmuckyTheCat 21:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scmucky, I know all the mantras around here; are you saying that since any website can be used to verify its own contents, that any website is worth a Wikipedia article, or no? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources must be used selectively:

  1. We can say "the site tells its users to be funny".
  2. We cannot say "the site's users try to be funny".
  3. We can say "the site claims it is run by girlmecha".
  4. We cannot say "Sherrod DeGrippo heard of the deletion of the LiveJournal-related article" blah blah etc.

If you won't let me merge the entire thing in, I'll at least remove the "history" section due to this obvious issue. Ashibaka tock 21:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica&oldid=54783579"