| Revision as of 23:05, 17 July 2006 editBdj (talk | contribs)19,739 edits →External link: r← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 09:06, 28 December 2024 edit undoWoahglaceon (talk | contribs)36 edits →ED Downtime: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{oldafdfull|votepage=Encyclopædia Dramatica|date=2 Jun 2005 |result='''keep'''}} |
|
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{oldafdfull|votepage=Encyclopaedia Dramatica|date=24 March 2006|result='''no consensus'''}} |
|
|
|
{{Notice|{{find}}}} |
|
|
{{not a forum}} |
|
|
{{FAQ}} |
|
|
{{Old XfD multi |
|
|
| date = January 9 2011 |
|
|
| result = '''Speedy keep''' |
|
|
| link = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopedia_Dramatica_(5th_nomination) |
|
|
| date2 = February 15 2009 |
|
|
| result2 = '''Speedy keep''' |
|
|
| link2 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopedia_Dramatica_(4th_nomination) |
|
|
| date3 = July 19 2008 |
|
|
| result3 = '''Speedy keep''' |
|
|
| link3 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopedia_Dramatica_(3rd_nomination) |
|
|
| date4 = May 19 2008 |
|
|
| result4 = '''Keep''' |
|
|
| link4 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopedia_Dramatica_(2nd_nomination) |
|
|
| date5 = May 8 2008 |
|
|
| result5 = '''Allow recreation''' |
|
|
| link5 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_8 |
|
|
| date6 = May 7 2008 |
|
|
| result6 = '''Keep Deleted (speedy close)''' |
|
|
| link6 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_7 |
|
|
| date7 = May 3 2008 |
|
|
| result7 = '''Keep Deleted (speedy close)''' |
|
|
| link7 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_3 |
|
|
| date8 = March 6 2008 |
|
|
| result8 = '''Keep Deleted''' |
|
|
| link8 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_6 |
|
|
| date9 = February 6 2008 |
|
|
| result9 = '''Keep Deleted''' |
|
|
| link9 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_6 |
|
|
| date10 = January 10 2008 |
|
|
| result10 = '''Keep Deleted''' |
|
|
| link10 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_10 |
|
|
| date11 = December 8 2007 |
|
|
| result11 = '''Keep Deleted (speedy close)''' |
|
|
| link11 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_8 |
|
|
| date12 = October 3 2007 |
|
|
| result12 = '''Keep Deleted''' |
|
|
| link12 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_3 |
|
|
| date13 = September 8 2007 |
|
|
| result13 = '''Keep Deleted (speedy close)''' |
|
|
| link13 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8 |
|
|
| date14 = July 23 2007 |
|
|
| result14 = '''Keep Deleted''' |
|
|
| link14 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_23 |
|
|
| date15 = April 29 2007 |
|
|
| result15 = '''Keep Deleted (speedy close)''' |
|
|
| link15 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_29 |
|
|
| date16 = April 23 2007 |
|
|
| result16 = '''Keep Deleted''' |
|
|
| link16 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_23 |
|
|
| date17 = November 18 2006 |
|
|
| result17 = '''Keep Deleted''' |
|
|
| link17 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Recently_concluded_(2006_November) |
|
|
| date18 = October 28 2006 |
|
|
| result18 = '''Keep Deleted''' |
|
|
| link18 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Recently_concluded_(2006_October) |
|
|
| date19 = September 5 2006 |
|
|
| result19 = '''Keep Deleted''' |
|
|
| link19 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Recently_concluded_(2006_September) |
|
|
| date20 = July 23 2006 |
|
|
| result20 = '''Deletion Endorsed''' |
|
|
| link20 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Recently_concluded_(2006_July) |
|
|
| date21 = July 23 2006 |
|
|
| result21 = '''Delete''' |
|
|
| link21 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica_(3rd_nomination) |
|
|
| date22 = March 30, 2006 |
|
|
| result22 = '''No consensus''' |
|
|
| link22 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopaedia_Dramatica |
|
|
| date23 = June 8 2005 |
|
|
| result23 = '''Keep''' |
|
|
| link23 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica |
|
|
| date24 = December 18 2004 |
|
|
| result24 = '''Delete''' |
|
|
| link24 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Encyclopedia_Dramatica |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Websites|importance=mid|computing-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture |importance=mid }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Comedy |importance=mid }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Books|referencework=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Connected contributor|Michaeldsuarez|editedhere=yes|declared=yes|banned=yes}} |
|
|
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|text=Many Afd links|1= |
|
|
}}<!--other banners--> |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 25 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== June 2024 == |
|
Archives: ] ] ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the .top version is now offline so it didn't last very long. It is unclear why this has happened and the site faces another period of uncertainty. '''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 07:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It's back, and according to the Dramatica forum, "] suspended the domain." So off we go with a new domain, with .top holding the record for the shortest tenure at less than a month.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 18:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Excessive inline links to ED == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Re . ED currently has two domains, edramatica.com which was registered on 9 June 2024, and dramatica.wtf which was registered on 13 May 2024 and is also being used for the forums. Since edramatica.com seems to be the main address and dramatica.wtf is a mirror, the article should give edramatica.com as the address per ].--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 10:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
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 Misplaced Pages User pages to point to ED User pages, per ], 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? ]]]''']''' 22:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
*The link to the ED statistics would be a pretty stnadard inline footnote style "source" link. The rest should probably go. ] 03:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::Re : edramatica.com is down at the moment, but it is unclear whether this is a temporary blip or something more serious.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 15:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
==]== |
|
|
|
::::I'm an ED regular, and I saw it go down live. When it went down, edramatica.com was replaced with a page that said, "So Don't Do That Then... (This domain has been terminated for abuse)", so I think it's safe to believe that edramatica.com has been suspended by EasyDNS. ] (]) 17:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
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. ] 15:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::Thanks, there have been persistent claims in the past few weeks that domain registrars are unhappy with some of the content on ED. Freedom of speech is one thing, deliberate harassment and defamation of living people is another. Since this is all part of the fun (cough, cough) at ED, it leaves them with the difficult task of finding a new domain and web host.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 18:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
* The only reason I can see for you changing it to "bigoted" is the fact that you look like you have trouble spelling ''controversial'' --] 17:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*And thanks to the wonders of the ], we can see the termination message . It does indeed say "So Don't Do That Then... (This domain has been terminated for abuse)" as a message from ], complete with a dead skeleton pirate. At this rate ED will end up as a ] only, because no domain will have them.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 18:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:The forums at also seem to be down, as all I get is an error message saying "Page could not be loaded". (On other devices I tried, the website won't even load at all and just says "DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN") ] (]) 22:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:They are now on encyclopediadramatica.gay, which was registered with ] on 17 June 2024. So let's see how long this lasts, they have had three new domains in little over a month.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 07:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::That might not be the wisest choice, per the ] section of the ] article. I don't know, we'll just have to wait and see how long this one will last for. ] (]) 11:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::OT, but i'm surprised to see ED able to registed the .gay domain at all. ] (]) 11:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::The .gay website now redirects to edramatica.com, which is working again. ] (]) 22:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
===.win domain=== |
|
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 ] |
|
|
|
Re : It's true that the site is up and running at .win, but it is also up and running at .gay at the time of writing. This leads to a problem with ] as usually only one URL is given.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 07:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
*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? --] 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:.gay is the current official domain and hosts both the Encyclopedia Dramatica Forums and the wiki. .win is an unauthorized copy of the site that was made by a disgruntled former wiki sysop. The .win site doesn't even have a forum because the guy who runs it never even had a copy of the forum database (although he tried to beg the owner of .gay for the database). |
|
* "Their arguements are flawed at best, and lies at worst" - It's a ] website -- ] 21:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* <small></small> ] 10:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have to agree with Karmafist on this one. A while back, I created an account on ED just to poke around and observe. Within days, I had all sorts of attackish templates pasted on my user and talk pages. Whenever I reverted them, they would be reverted back plus more added on. I requested protection on the pages but who knows what the hell's on there now because I refuse to check it. Probably attackist trash is still there, feel free to check for yourself (username Nathan or nathanrdotcom. I forget). — ]] <sup>(])</sup> 23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Really? I have an account there and I've been very happy with the site. I think it's the second best site on the internet, and sometimes when Misplaced Pages's giving me the blues, I think it's ''the'' best. I once got a "hey stupid" message from an admin there, and enjoyed it. I think the way to handle ED is to not take anything seriously there. Nathan, I couldn't find your userpage there under "Nathan" or "nathanrdotcom", so I don't know what kind of templates you're talking about. -]<sup>(])</sup> 01:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::His page (which has since been protected) can be found . I think the whole issue was due to a misunderstanding of the site's rules on talk pages, which are a bit different from those of Misplaced Pages. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I think his mistake was not taking being insulted and belittled in the right spirit. Maybe Nathan isn't into the whole snotty drama kid aesthetic. -]<sup>(])</sup> 18:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I remember that case. What happened was that nathanr contravened rule number 4, the “no unwarranted self importance rule”. Anyway, it’s all water under the bridge now. ~ ] 09:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: seems to be exactly as he wanted it (after minor edit drama that lasted a single day), and from editing. I hope it can be agreed that displays ] in explaining the then-prevailing Encyclopædia Dramatica ]. On the whole, I don't understand ]'s complaint. --] 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I guess he meant , which you reverted a few times. The page is also protected, although . Apparently, the logs on ED start somewhere in March 2006, so he could've been blocked before that time without it appearing in the logs. --]|] 14:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Here's the . Apparently, he was blocked indefinitely, then quickly unblocked, and later blaocked for 12 hours by another admin. That was actually fairly tame punishment by ED's standards. And as IICATSII stated, the blocks were only administered due to repeated disregard for the rules. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:No one of any importance from .online or any of the previous domains is using .win, they are all on .gay. ] (]) 00:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Sources == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::The main pages of .gay and .win are different, so they are not a complete mirror. Also, .win does not have the forums which are only on .gay. So it does look like .win is an unofficial mirror and not endorsed by the people at .gay.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 07:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
I think wikifur could be a secondary source on this article. ] 04:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: Those are 'very interesting' one sided comments by both editors, hmmm, but above statement makes no sense if some ver is accepted or not... .win has more articles, also .win has more quality videos... ] (]) 16:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I don't know . . . I'm not sure ] really adds much, and it is written by a group of people who have reason to dislike the site, even with our NPOV policy. ] 15:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm not going to get drawn into an argument over which is the better or more official version, but they are not serving exactly the same content and .win does not have the forum pages.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 16:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
As this article is still devoid of reliable sources two months after the AfD, I merged what could be verified into ]. ] <small>]</small> 04:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:The site itself is a primary source. Losing a VfD and turning around and making the article a redirect is not ok. ] 06:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Our usual rule is that site's can't be sources for themselves, isn't it? Wouldn't that make this whole page ]? 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. -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::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. ] 21:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::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 ]. If it can serve as the only souce for itself, why not let it in? Am I making sense? -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Verifiability is not a substitute for notability. Apples/Oranges, etc. ] 21:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::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 Misplaced Pages article, or no? -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Not by most notability standards but this isn't about notability. ] 23:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I don't see how that's an answer to the question I asked. -]<sup>(])</sup> 01:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Because your question doesn't make sense to me. Whether a website is deserving of inclusion as a Misplaced Pages article is a question of community consensus and notability. ED has been through deletion reviews several times already. Your question is about verifiability. Things (including websites) can be verifiable without being notable, so no, being verifiable does not grant automatic inclusion to Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
:::::::::The problem with ED is that it is notable but difficult to verify with secondary sources. In which case, we use the site as a primary source. We should only report the things that are obvious and restrain ourselves from making novel interpretations of observations. This isn't difficult because the creators and primary authors of ED material have publicly written their motivations and such into ED documents and policies. We don't need to interpret because we can observe. ] 01:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It would seem that .win is down for the count, leaving edramatica.com as the sole host of the property. The circle of life continues... ''']'''<sub> (]•])</sub> 16:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::It's hard to keep up with this, but at the time of writing, .gay is completely offline, while .win has a page saying "It's over - for now... Due to reasons that shall not be disclosed I will not be able to run encyclopediadramatica.win anymore - at least all on my own." This means that edramatica.com is the only working version at the moment, and thankfully we no longer have to listen to arguments about whether .win or .gay is the better version, because both of them are unavailable now.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 16:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{Reply|ianmacm}} I'm beginning to get concerned about the quality of the article, as the list of domains & owners is becoming too unwieldy for the infobox. We should probably find a way to truncate it. ''']'''<sub> (]•])</sub> 17:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Agreed, I'm not sure that the infobox needs to list all of the domains that are now defunct.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 17:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== no link? == |
|
Primary sources must be used selectively: |
|
|
# We can say "the site tells its users to be funny". |
|
|
# We cannot say "the site's users try to be funny". |
|
|
# We can say "the site claims it is run by girlmecha". |
|
|
# 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. ] <small>]</small> 21:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:But it is verifiable from writings of Sherrod DeGrippo that that is the reason she started it. That is actually sourced, isn't it? (And girlmecha is a livejournal/somethingawful user who has an article, she's got nothing to do with the site.) ] 23:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Not verifiable in an independent published source. Isn't that the standard? Has any independent ] written about ED? -]<sup>(])</sup> 23:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why is there no link? ] (]) 17:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
==History== |
|
|
::''Encyclopædia Dramatica's history began when LiveJournal blogger and LJ Drama co-founder James Lee from Seattle, Washington, started using Misplaced Pages and created an article about LiveJournal blogger Grayden Rayne (former legal name Joshua Williams). The article was subsequently deleted, despite LiveJournal users, including members of LJ Drama, lobbying to keep the article.'' |
|
|
:Verifiable based on Misplaced Pages records alone, but also based on entries from ljdrama and ED. |
|
|
::''LiveJournal user and LJ Drama administrator Sherrod DeGrippo heard of the deletion of the LiveJournal-related article, and, as a response, came up with the idea of creating Encyclopædia Dramatica so LiveJournal users could write about their experiences on LiveJournal and other blogging Web sites, as well as various Internet phenomena. DeGrippo stated in a Misplaced Pages discussion that " vanity pages and personal flame wars on wikipedia is the reason Encyclopedia Dramatica exists".'' |
|
|
:Self-verifying. DeGrippo, in her own words, quoted within the paragraph. |
|
|
::''Since its creation, Encyclopædia Dramatica has wgrown to over 2000 articles. By September of 2005, Encyclopædia Dramatica had surpassed five million page views.'' |
|
|
:Non-controversial statistics. |
|
|
:] 23:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:There have been so many ups and downs in 2024 that it is hard to keep track of them all. However, the article is correct that edramatica.com is currently the only one that is online. There is also a problem with ] due to unsuitable material on the main page (harassment, ] etc).--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 17:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
* It would help if this stuff was actually cited in the article. Might lead to fewer misunderstandings and make the article more workable. --] 23:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::I'm not sure why the user keeps deleting this as it answered the question and it's useful for other editors who might ask the same question. ] (]) 23:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Someone deleted them a long time ago, actually, with an edit summary of "too many ED inline links" or something like that. ] 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
"DeGrippo, in her own words, quoted within the paragraph." How do we know she's telling the truth? ] <small>]</small> 23:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
:::as of 12/20/24, edramatica.com is down with the "timed out" error, awaiting further information. ] (]) 06:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::IsItDownRightNow says that it has been down for over a week. This means that at the time of writing, the site is not online at all. This isn't a major panic, as ED has been offline for weeks in the past and returned. Watch this space.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 08:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:The article on the US Declaration of Independence quotes Thomas Jefferson on reasons certain statements are in it (and not in it). How do we know he's not lying? The truth of the GV statement isn't at issue. It's a quotation, properly sourced to the speaker, and immediately relevant to the topic. Misplaced Pages editors should make no claim to either it's truth or fiction. ] 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm talking about the thing where ED is a response to Misplaced Pages. That's an interpretation of someone's comments. ] <small>]</small> 00:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
:::::Are you checking some other ED mirror? I'm taking about edramatica.com, which was back on the same day it got down, which was 12/20/24. ] (]) 18:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I couldn't access edramatica.com yesterday (20 December), but it is back online today. IsItDownRightNow agrees and says "Last down: 1 day 10 hours ago.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 20:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::What? ] 00:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::The US Declaration of Independence, and Tho. Jefferson's comments on it, have been thoroughly documented in independent, reliable secondary sources by historians who are uniquely qualified to comment on the relevance and meaning of various statements. That's why we ask for citations from good secondary sources. As far as I can tell, the best secondary source we have on ED is ]. -]<sup>(])</sup> 01:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It was rhetorical. Jefferson may be well sourced and still be a liar, right? Ashibaka is accusing a primary source of being mendacious about her own motives. ] 01:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I wouldn't call it an "accusation" so much as a rhetorical question making a point about sources, but ok... -]<sup>(])</sup> 01:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It raises the question that we should be questioning the "truth" about a primary source. That is absolutely not why we are here. |
|
|
:::::Nobody is raising Sherrod as a reliable source on anything but one question: the motivation behind the creation of ED. There is no other source to get that information. Where would a secondary source get better information about the motivation? It is unquestionable that Sherrod has made the same statement multiple times in multiple places. She said it. We write it (attributed to her). |
|
|
:::::If there was some controversy about it from a secondary source then the proper thing to do is cite BOTH. That isn't the case. ] 02:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Well, ok, but this herring is very red. I'm not claiming that Sherrod is lying, nor is anyone, I don't think. I'm simply asking whether there exist any ] secondary sources for the information in this article, and if not, why it's cool to base ''this'' article on primary sources when that isn't our usual standard. I regularly see articles deleted because there's no '''independent, reliable source''' for the facts in them. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a tertiary source, right? -]<sup>(])</sup> 06:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::] is unusable as it is currently written because it contradicts the very policies that it is trying to backup (as well as itself). That's why it's a guideline and not policy. It does, however, give general credence to using primary sources (which the NOR policy says is ''essential'' and the verify policy says we should try to source as close to primary as possible) as "in general, Misplaced Pages articles should not depend on primary sources". In this case, we are relying on primary sources. |
|
|
:::::::Reliance on primary sources here is acceptable, because the basics of the article are factual and not interpretative. There is no interpretation going on because ED editors have stated these things widely and openly. ] 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::DeGrippo stated as such during a deletion debate. Perhaps the first one for this article, or maybe the mediacrat one, I don't recall at this moment. The phrase was something like "Moved to Encyclopedia Dramatica, which was created for these types of things." --] <small>(])</small> 20:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::About Wikifur as a source here.... ... Wikifur uses Encyclopædia Dramatica as many of its own references for furry-related happenings (even though ED is supposed to mock furries, wikifur doesn't get all sensitive and just links the info.) ] 21:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Wikifur isn't a source about anything. ] 03:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ED Downtime == |
|
==MediaWiki features== |
|
|
Dyslexic Editor repeatedly puts in phrases about ED use of Show Preview and such as "criticism of Misplaced Pages". These are basic features of the MediaWiki software that both Misplaced Pages and ED run on. It has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
edramatica.com is down again. |
|
Secondly, he keeps putting in references to Chuck Norris based on a single sentence in the ED Welcome message. ED is not a site about Chuck Norris. ] 16:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
(12/23/24) ] (]) 06:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:edramatica.com is back up. (12/23/24) ] (]) 09:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:You're the one edit warring here. I restored some of your deletions. You act like you control the article. Several admins here have done edits and you've edit warred with all of them. Also I the 7-11 the you keep re-adding I remove fails ] and ]. ] 06:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Your additions and deletions don't seem to make sense in the context of ED, though. What's your justification for them? --] <small>(])</small> 13:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm relaxed about this, as ED's hosting is famously unreliable. It has been offline for days or weeks in the past.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 12:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Verify slurpees in article on Canadia , Verify Slurpees in Japan , Taiwan has Slurpees , China is full of Slurpees , including pictures. |
|
|
|
:::Sorry for the long delay, edramatica.com was back up the next day. ] (]) 09:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::This is notable in the ''context'' of a list of common themes. |
|
|
::Unlike other wikis you may edit where Admins are given great control to abuse people and whatever they say goes, Misplaced Pages admins just have easier access to tools. On ED if an admin wants an article deleted, they just delete it. On WP, it is an abuse of power to delete an article that has survived community consensus, twice. ] 15:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::4 articles is lacking as ED has maybe 1000 articles. Can you cite 20 with 7-11 references that have been there before May 2006 that are 7-11 references that you haven't personally added? I'm assuming you yourself added those 7-11 references some time in the past. ] 04:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Just look and . And a good number of these articles are ones that SchmuckyTheCat has never touched. --] <sup>]</sup> 05:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::In your links, old meme links to these. The site is full of old memes. 7-11, should be mentioned as an old meme in this article, unless you want every old meme to be a common theme? ] 06:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Other wiki views== |
|
|
I personally think that "Encyclopædia Dramatica" is total shite. Now, that's my ], but many websites that use the wiki technology share this opinion. Wikipedians seem to be in the opinion that it's a waste of good internet space, while Uncyclopedians, well, look for yourself. |
|
|
http://uncyclopedia.org/Encyclopedia_Dramatica {{unsigned|80.42.154.33}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:I have to disagree. Encyclopædia Dramatica is the second best site on the internets, sometimes first best. Don't try to speak for Wikipedians, anon. -]<sup>(])</sup> 18:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It has better content control over removing lame attempts at jokes. It's nowhere near perfect (i.e. 7-11 slurpie crap is there), but it's better than uncyclopedia. ] 07:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Who cares what a person's opinion on ED is? It stil deserves a supposedly factual article. I don't like Hitler too much, but I still think there should be an article on him. How is what you think about ED relevant at all? <br> Sidebar: Encyclopædia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia are two different websites which are home to two different types of humor. Just because something is different, it doesn't mean it is better or worse. --] 06:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ED is down == |
|
|
|
|
|
today i found that ED was down.] 02:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Today I ate yogurt. Despite that, ED was available online. Maybe your Mom installed some ]. --] 03:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Jacknstock Notable for inclusion in this article? ] 13:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::what? ] 00:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::] is asking if I am notable enough to be included in the ED article. Perhaps I am, but I have serious doubts about my verifiability. There has been very little change to that article since, leaving all grammatical errors and misspellings intact. Since reverting the article on June 8, Crayolacrime has made no other edits, and neither has Sloth (who I suspect is the same person or a very close friend). --] 01:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Furry administrators == |
|
|
|
|
|
Despite the immense amount of furbashing on the site, many of their administrators have fursona names and a few, like SchmuckyTheCat, even state their furry fandom in the website's furry article (which has been protected for years and the mention has been there for years). This is verifiable. ] 16:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
] 16:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
and the mention remained to this day. ] 16:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Do you not understand parody? No ED admin is a furry. Calling me a furry borders on ]. I don't remember the circumstance, but I think some vandal hater there added my name to it. I found their vandalism attempt as humorous and left it (I try to incorporate vandalism to my wikipedia user page as well, rather than wholesale removal of it). |
|
|
:I did unprotect the article there, I don't believe in long term protectionism on any wiki, thanks for pointing that out. ] 18:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::How does being a furry be a personal attack? |
|
|
::It appears you didn't read what I wrote. Jacknstock did it. Link proves this. ] 18:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Dyslexic editor, what's your point? If there are furry admins at ED, if there aren't, who cares? That's not material for an encyclopedia article. Are you actually trying to use Misplaced Pages to point at someone and call them a furry? This isn't the Wiki on which to play out these dramas, ED is. -]<sup>(])</sup> 19:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I suppose three of the admins have an animal in them. Killhamster (which is about animal cruelty, not impersonation), Schmucky (who just told you he's not a furry), and Blu_Aardvark (also not a furry). You know, if someone has an animal in their name, '''it doesn't make them a furry'''. ] 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The important point is - who cares? Talking about who is and isn't a furry among the ED admins is ''so'' not what Misplaced Pages is for. If we all grow up a notch and focus on ], the problem will just go away. -]<sup>(])</sup> 19:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The term "furry" is a slur. Like faggot, or nigger. I don't appreciate your referencing me with that term. ] 20:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::So then do you consider "furs" or "furry fan" the non-racist version? ] 17:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Wow, do you know what a slur is? ] 18:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Or just misuse of the term racist? ] 18:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::SchmuckyTheCat I was just going off your website. I'm not sure what you consider wrong with being a furry, but if you enlighten me, I will listen. ] 23:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That isn't a discussion forum. That subject has nothing to do with this article. ] 06:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*This disussion - - ]]] 15:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Protection== |
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed the article was protected. I hope it wasn't from me and my edits here. I don't want to get in trouble. I am officially withdrawing my furries thing. I also saw http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Furry was changed and it says SchmuckyTheCat isn't furry. ] 09:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:No, something with the image. Instead of reverting to the image that was uploaded by me in February of whenever, I think someone attempted to overwrite it because Mongo's the featured article on ED this week, from the looks of things. The correct course of action would have been to revert to the prior image, now we lose a screenshot entirely. Perhaps Mongo actually wants to discuss the page protection here? --] <small>]</small> 11:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree that we shouldn't upload a screenshot of an article featuring a Misplaced Pages user, but to remove the image entirely? And notice he removed it after protecting. I thought you weren't really supposed to do that. From the ]: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is not appropriate to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page, except to add a protected page notice, a link to Misplaced Pages:Accuracy dispute or Misplaced Pages:NPOV dispute, or a similar disclaimer about the current state of an article'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::Does this "protect and edit" action of MONGO seem inappropriate to anyone else? ] ] 15:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::It does to me. A long time ago people fought and fought over which images should be included and which could be considered fair use. It was generally agreed upon that the "ae" image logo and a screenshot of the site were the most appropriate. I don't understand why updating it from february to now is bad, many of the website article screenshots are updated. I don't get it. I think that with all the dispute over images, the screenshot at the very least would be fine. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Also, yes. First, I didn't see an edit war. I saw a few edits per day, mostly correcting small lines of text. Didn't look like edit warring, excessive editing or vandalism to me. Not to mention ''Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dipute over''. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Besdies that, he is leaving creepy and slightly threatening messages to me in my talk page. I responded in my talk page, but I'm not going to track him down and bother him as he has me. Ridiculous. I can't believe this guy is a mod here. --] 15:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The older version attacked no one.--] 19:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't really understand it either, but considering the image could have been reverted, it makes even less sense. I don't even know if it can be recovered in that state anymore. I don't think any of us would have been okay with ED's attack page being the image here if that's what occurred, but I didn't see MONGO bothering to discuss it, either. --] <small>]</small> 15:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::It might've been inappropriate, but I can certainly understand that someone does not want such stuff written about him on any article. Let's just all calm down a little, nothing horrible will happen when the article is protected for a short while, and maybe add a current screenshot of the website when there's nothing about Wikipedians on its main page. --]|] 15:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Any anger he has is certainly justified, it's part of the reason why I haven't contributed to the site in months and months. It doesn't, however, justify his actions ''here''r. --] <small>]</small> 15:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The old screenshot was fine. There wasn't any reason to update and it was obviously a troll. The protection is absolutely inappropriate. ] 17:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Find an admin to unprotect it - I suggest you go to ]. ] - ] 17:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I already had. ] 17:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think MONGO overreacted because lots of images and articles get vandalized daily and are reverted with no protection. Looking at the article's history, there is one edit of changing the picture, two edits where who edited it didn't show preview, and one by someone wondering why the ED screenshot isn't there. So basically one edit, and then one of replacing the current picture. This counts as 2 actual ungood edits here. A whole bunch of articles receive tons of those a day and are never protected. I notice the article was updated with MONGO's reactions to this article and checking contributions and logs, it's accurate, so I'm really afraid he's going to ban all of us just for protesting the protection. ] 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I've reprotected this article with myself as protecting admin. Misplaced Pages isn't to be used for the purpose of harassing people. --] 17:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::And it's not. A troll updated a picture, the only action that needs to be done is block the troll and revert the picture. Why does that merit protecting the article? ] 17:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: The current version doesn't seem to contain the picture that was used to harass. --] 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yeah, Mongo deleted it instead of reversing it. --] <small>]</small> 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems reasonable, Looking at the website, it seems to me that almost any screenshot of their front page is liable to be defamatory or harassing, so a screen shot is probably not a good idea. There is a link to the site for people who are curious, but we're not obliged to advance ED's campaigns of harassment. --] 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:The previous screenshot (from february?) before the troll was fine. It was here for months. It was only in the guise of "updating the screenshot" (which didn't need to happen) that this became an issue. And for the record, there are hundreds of non-defamatory ED articles that would be fine WP screenshots (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Chronic_Troll_Syndrome). |
|
|
:ED currently has a well-known anti-WP kook on a writing spree. Unfortunately, ED has better google pagerank than anywhere else. This too shall pass, most of the ED admins are waiting for him to get bored before re-writing it to be funny. |
|
|
:] 18:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: When he gets bored we may restore the screenshot. Have you ever seen a bored kook? --] 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Isn't it a new MediaWiki feature that old revisions of pictures can be undeleted and restored after vandalism? Why not restore that? |
|
|
:::And for all the discussion of the picture - why does that justify protecting the article? ] 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can we please change the protecting admin to someone NOT criticized on encyclopedia dramatica? ] 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Don't see why we should. We're not bound by their editorial policy. --] 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why was this deleted from the talk page? ] 22:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: A troll, in the form of a snide personal attack. --] 22:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Come on, you can't seriously think that this was a honest comment made by a new user? --]|] 22:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I work in customer service and deal with crazy people all day. ] 22:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Joseph Evers == |
|
|
|
|
|
Joseph Evers bought ED from DeGrippo in mid-2005. Why would this be made up? |
|
|
*Because it is stupid. ] 18:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== External link == |
|
|
|
|
|
So long as the external link to the website this article is about takes people to a page that is a personal attack on ANY wikipedian, they will get no external link here. Misplaced Pages is not going to promote that website anymore than we promote hivemind.--] 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hivemind? ] 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Your edit was against the protection policy, and our linking should not be governed by what people put on their page. I'm sorry you're disturbed by this, but you're certainly not helping anything. --] 22:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: We don't facilitate harassment. At worst, MONGO should have trusted others in the community to show that solidarity against such harassment that is the due of any member. --] 23:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The link does not "facilitate harassment" any more now than it did before. The main page changes from week to week, it's a nonstarter. The sudden lack of good faith due to the actions of one troll involving an image here is amazingly disturbing. --] <small>]</small> 23:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
Yes, the .top version is now offline so it didn't last very long. It is unclear why this has happened and the site faces another period of uncertainty. ♦IanMacM♦ 07:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
.svg){kind=icon}
