Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Encyclopedia Dramatica. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
BLP?
I wasn't aware Encyclopedia Dramatica achieved sentience. Will it shortly take over the USA's nuclear weapons facilities and launch a strike against Russia, sending the Earth into a nuclear holocaust wherein the human survivors must fight the robotic soldiers of SkyNet ED, and send a man back in time to keep Dramatica from killing the mother of John Connor Jimbo Wales, but in reality this man becomes Jimbo's father, cementing the creation of Dramatica's most hated nemesis? Howa0082 (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- The issue is that this is an article which deals with living people, therefore the WP:BLP policy must be maintained in editing the article. BLP says
This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages.
- In this case the article discusses several living people who are related to ED, and given contentious nature of this article, BLP needs to be respected in dealing with those people. MBisanz talk 14:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I got to make a Terminator joke, so I'm satisfied. Howa0082 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- yes, that did make me smile. MBisanz talk 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Me too. :) Acalamari 18:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- yes, that did make me smile. MBisanz talk 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I got to make a Terminator joke, so I'm satisfied. Howa0082 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The only person who considers ED to be their nemesis are User:MONGO. Jimbo's so busy globe trotting I think he could care less. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would think that anyone vilified on ED would dislike it. --clpo13(talk) 20:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- How come nobody ever vilifies me? I feel left out. :( Wikidemo (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- You have to become either a bureaucratic fuck, an administrator, diaper fetishist, or a lulzworthy cry-baby-drama-queen to be worthy of an article. It helps if you're all four. Are you already well on your way? Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you tone down the incivilities. Corvus cornixtalk 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Be happy as you are, and that you're not mentioned there, Wikidemo. Acalamari 18:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- You have to become either a bureaucratic fuck, an administrator, diaper fetishist, or a lulzworthy cry-baby-drama-queen to be worthy of an article. It helps if you're all four. Are you already well on your way? Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- How come nobody ever vilifies me? I feel left out. :( Wikidemo (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence that there is nobody else who considers ED their nemesis. Corvus cornixtalk 17:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- How do I cite web serious fucking business? Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed the above statement for you, Corvus. ;) Howa0082 (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I almost did that. :) Corvus cornixtalk 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- i saw what you did there sceptre, and its not funny. are you allowed to edit my edit summary? the summary i entered said something like 'if you edit a users comments you should remove their sig'. Badmachine (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's a banned user not realy a controversial edit. Don't think anyone can selectivly edit someones edit summary. --Hu12 (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- something tells me hes not just anyone. i know what i entered in my edit sum. i dont even care that he edited someone elses comment without removing their sig, thats between sceptre and user:neapolitan sixth but why take out my edit sum? Badmachine (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Didn't think editing summaries was possible? Even if he was an was an administrator, it can't be done.--Hu12 (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- his own edit summary "not vandalism, trust me, I know what section of the policy you're referring to " looks like he saw my own complete edit summary. otherwise what the hell is he referring to? Badmachine (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- wp:village pump (technical) says it cant be done, but what he 'did' do still sucks. Badmachine (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like it was WP:TWINKLE related, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#how_did_my_edit_summary_get_truncated.3F. Not anything to sweat over. cheers --Hu12 (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- wp:village pump (technical) says it cant be done, but what he 'did' do still sucks. Badmachine (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- his own edit summary "not vandalism, trust me, I know what section of the policy you're referring to " looks like he saw my own complete edit summary. otherwise what the hell is he referring to? Badmachine (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Didn't think editing summaries was possible? Even if he was an was an administrator, it can't be done.--Hu12 (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- something tells me hes not just anyone. i know what i entered in my edit sum. i dont even care that he edited someone elses comment without removing their sig, thats between sceptre and user:neapolitan sixth but why take out my edit sum? Badmachine (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's a banned user not realy a controversial edit. Don't think anyone can selectivly edit someones edit summary. --Hu12 (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Protection
Why is the article even full-protected anyway? It makes it really hard for anyone who's not an admin to, you know, improve the article so it more clearly meets WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Extensive edit warring prior to protection. Use {{editprotected}} to add citations, content, etc. MBisanz talk 19:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think extensive overstates the case a bit. The URL was inserted once and removed once. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's quite funny that there is "feel free to edit this article" both in AfD template at the top and stub template at the bottom :) --Have a nice day. Running 21:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the former text. The latter states that users "can help by expanding [the article]," which can be accomplished by proposing changes on this talk page. —David Levy 21:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Requesting unprotection
In a word, don't. I just declined two more requests (yes, two requests were concurrently running at RFPP). There is no way that this article is going to be unprotected before the AFD ends, so please stop asking. Repeated requests are nothing more than an attempt at forum-shopping, which is prohibited by behavioral guidelines established at Canvassing. Horologium (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- For those keeping count, there have been five unprotection requests in the last 24 hours, which were declined by three different administrators. Horologium (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- That does seem excessive. On the other hand, if we could simply get an agreement to not insert the link for now, I don't see why the article should be protected. As I noted above, there really wasn't even any significant edit warring before the article got locked down (1 edit, 1 revert). I certainly don't see what the AfD has to do with anything. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- There may be a hint in all this, that article protection may not be desired. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it's never desired. It is, however, sometimes necessary. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, CR. I was trying to formulate a civil response that conveyed the same sentiment, but I think you said it best. Horologium (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it's never desired. It is, however, sometimes necessary. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- There may be a hint in all this, that article protection may not be desired. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- That does seem excessive. On the other hand, if we could simply get an agreement to not insert the link for now, I don't see why the article should be protected. As I noted above, there really wasn't even any significant edit warring before the article got locked down (1 edit, 1 revert). I certainly don't see what the AfD has to do with anything. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Unident - That is asinine in the extreme. An article undergoing AFD should NOT be protected as the AFD process can often seriously improve an article. Forcing editors to jump through 'editprotected' hoops smacks of admins on a power trip. Exxolon (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have any particular edits in mind, apart from the URL? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I really, really didn't mean that to come off as snarky as it did. I'm serious in that I'm more than willing to make any uncontroversial edits you propose, barring objections from other editors. Do you have anything in mind? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Normally, I might agree, but considering the outright insanity in the AfD, protection on this article I think is greatly needed. There is enough vandalism and foolishness going on there that doesn't need to be brought here. That said, so far, none of the keep votes that I saw provided any additional sources or information to add to the article, so I don't think its really hindering anything. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree (minus the indignation) that protection interferes with the AfD process and would render any decision to delete (which seems unlikely at this point) questionable as to legitimacy and staying power. Inasmuch as protection may be necessary, and came first, I think the AfD nomination coming in the midst of the ArbCom clarification request was a poor call that should have been speedily rejected. An AfD, arbcom case, and edit war at the same time, all in opposition to Wikipedia's coverage of this unruly detractor, really is forum shopping.Wikidemo (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well the same could be said of the DRV coming during the arbcom request I think. And even if it was deleted through this AfD and was unprotected, it would still go to DRV. MBisanz talk 04:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree (minus the indignation) that protection interferes with the AfD process and would render any decision to delete (which seems unlikely at this point) questionable as to legitimacy and staying power. Inasmuch as protection may be necessary, and came first, I think the AfD nomination coming in the midst of the ArbCom clarification request was a poor call that should have been speedily rejected. An AfD, arbcom case, and edit war at the same time, all in opposition to Wikipedia's coverage of this unruly detractor, really is forum shopping.Wikidemo (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of compromise, what about working on a copy in userspace? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea - done (i made a new section in this talkpage to make it more visible). --Have a nice day. Running 22:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk page redirect
ResolvedCould an admin change the fully-protected Talk:Encyclopaedia dramatica to redirect here instead of to the main ED article. Makes sense for the redirect to be Talk: -> Talk: instead of Talk: -> mainspace. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:41, May 16, 2008 (UTC)
good old userspace again
OK, i made a copy of the article (again) to my userspace, so anyone can edit it and (hopefully) add some new sources. Adding the ED link is still banned. Go here - User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica --Have a nice day. Running 22:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- No offence but Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica. Per Wikipedia:User_page#Copies_of_other_pages. Inapropriate use of userspace during a content dispute. "pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages". This Articles talk page is sufficient to make {{editprotected}} changes.--Hu12 (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't we just reduce protection to semi-protect with the understanding that any attempt to reinsert the link will lead to full protection sans link? At least, give it a shot, if it doesn't work, no harm done, really. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Or we could semi with the link in place, since it so obviously belongs right there. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I will delete it now (give me few seconds), you can speedily close the deletion review... --Have a nice day. Running 22:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- ok, i deleted the page (or at least the text, the template is still there). i just think WP is not working very good this way (tell me what you want to change and we will change it). That's why Nupedia did not work. But whatever you say. --Have a nice day. Running 22:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't we just reduce protection to semi-protect with the understanding that any attempt to reinsert the link will lead to full protection sans link? At least, give it a shot, if it doesn't work, no harm done, really. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Er, what? Temporary userspace working copies are regular, established practice. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not when designed to functionally substitute for articles that exist and are protected such as this one. I know Running ment well, and it was well intentioned.--Hu12 (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Bullshit. At this point you're just obstructing any progress on the article. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- This Articles talk page is sufficient to make {{editprotected}} changes (except for links)--Hu12 (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Is it? I don't think that's for you alone to decide. Most requests so far are stagnating, declined, or both. Apparently any attempt to work on the article is met with reams of poorly quoted, outdated policy and instant deletion nominations. This is supposed to be a wiki, y'know, where people can edit without filling out sixteen forms in triplicate. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, there have been precisely two actual editprotected requests. One was to edit the lead, and was done (by me) after no objections were raised. The other was the External link, which - for at least 5 different reasons I can see, and that are discussed at length above - was declined. There have been no other substantive suggestions or proposals for additional edits. I submit that several admins - myself included - are happy to edit the article as requested, if such requests are uncontroversial or clearly have consensus. There's opposition to removing the protection, so we might as well accomplish something in the interim. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Protected pages don't get edited as often as unprotected ones, this is a no-brainer; how much have we missed because people weren't willing to duke it out in full on the talk page to maybe get half an edit in? When we've made it abundantly clear that it's effectively impossible to edit the article, it's no wonder edits aren't being requested. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, that's how wikipedia works (and also WHY does it work) - people want to actually edit the article - to click on "edit", to click on "save", to see their change in the article. As I said, that's why wikipedia works and Nupedia didn't. (and I don't see quite clearly why this page is fully protected after all...) --Have a nice day. Running 23:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Protected pages don't get edited as often as unprotected ones, this is a no-brainer; how much have we missed because people weren't willing to duke it out in full on the talk page to maybe get half an edit in? When we've made it abundantly clear that it's effectively impossible to edit the article, it's no wonder edits aren't being requested. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, there have been precisely two actual editprotected requests. One was to edit the lead, and was done (by me) after no objections were raised. The other was the External link, which - for at least 5 different reasons I can see, and that are discussed at length above - was declined. There have been no other substantive suggestions or proposals for additional edits. I submit that several admins - myself included - are happy to edit the article as requested, if such requests are uncontroversial or clearly have consensus. There's opposition to removing the protection, so we might as well accomplish something in the interim. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Is it? I don't think that's for you alone to decide. Most requests so far are stagnating, declined, or both. Apparently any attempt to work on the article is met with reams of poorly quoted, outdated policy and instant deletion nominations. This is supposed to be a wiki, y'know, where people can edit without filling out sixteen forms in triplicate. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hu12 has misunderstood the cited guideline. The page in question is not being used for anything pertaining to the dispute that led to the page's protection, so it's a perfectly valid, constructive tool. Please see my MfD closure. —David Levy 23:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Edits Not pertainng to the dispute can be edited here, there is no misunderstanding it directly applies to Copies of other pages. --Hu12 (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The article has been nominated for deletion, so time is of the essence. Anmaaborative editing via "editprotected" requests is clumsy and particularly impractical in a case such as this. There's no valid reason to prevent users from attempting to improve the article in the simplest and easiest way possible.
- The misunderstanding is your belief that the cited guideline section is intended to prohibit this. As I explained in my closure, it's intended to prohibit the use of userspace pages as de facto articles or for the purpose of including disputed content (which Running explicitly advised against).
- Rather than attempting to enforce the text as you interpret it, please explain what harm is being caused. —David Levy 23:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- It would infact substitute as the article, where the article exists. full context; "Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion. Similarly, pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages. If you find that your user subpage has become as useful as a normal article or project page, consider moving it into the appropriate namespace or merging it with other similar pages already existing there. ".--Hu12 (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- 1. You still are misinterpreting that text. As I noted in my MfD closure, it refers to the practice of directing readers to the page as though it's part of the encyclopedia.
- 2. Again, please explain what harm is being caused. (The benefits already have been explained.) Even if true (which it isn't), "it violates a guideline" doesn't suffice. When rules don't help us to improve or maintain Wikipedia, we ignore them. —David Levy 00:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is no misinterpreting, as the practice of linking is specificly mentioned, however in a seperate statement " One should never create links from a mainspace article to any userpage, nor should a userspace essay be used as the primary documentation for any Wikipedia policy, guideline, practice, or concept.". IAR would apply in normal situations, however this Whole ED thing is not "normal", including having ArbCom involved. --Hu12 (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- 1. I've read the text quoted above, and I don't see how it contradicts anything that I've written. If a page doesn't exist primarily to be accessed by readers (as though it's part of the encyclopedia) it isn't functionally substituting for an article.
- If the guideline that you've cited meant what you claim it does, it would prohibit the creation of a userspace draft for the purpose of revising an existing article (something recommended in the content forking guideline), irrespective of whether said article had been protected.
- 2. Both the article's protection and the ArbCom's involvement pertain strictly to the URL dispute, which has absolutely no connection to the edits being performed to the userspace page.
- 3. I'm still waiting for you to cite the harm that's being caused. You're fully aware that it's normal for drafts (including revisions of existing articles) to be authored in userspace, and you aren't explaining how the fact that the article is protected (for an entirely unrelated reason) renders this inappropriate. —David Levy 01:20/01:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
request for change
{{editprotected}} whats better description than this :)
adding two more references (i am not very good at making <ref> references) --Have a nice day. Running 23:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Done--Hu12 (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- With all respect, I don't see the Das Trollparadies article there (I have added it in the third paragraph, maybe you just overlooked it, it is in that change link) - yes, it is a trivial mention but I think trivial mentions can be used as references too. --Have a nice day. Running 23:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mybad, didn't scroll down the page.. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Typo error. The newsreview should be http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=620760 - in article, there is 2 in the end of link. (thats why i think this way of building an article is stupid) --Have a nice day. Running 00:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} Please change "Ad driven" to "Ad and donation driven" for greater accuracy. EconomicsGuy (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Unprotection?
Right guys, how about we try unprotection? We can make it explicitly clear the site isn't to be linked to, and can do that with a hidden comment, linking here. It might be worth seeing how it goes.... Ryan Postlethwaite 23:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think it is a bad idea, but at this point I cannot be considered an uninvolved admin. (Good luck finding one of those for this article). I suspect that this article is going to need protection for a good long time if it remains here. Horologium (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm still uninvolved :-) I'm just weighing up opinions on this - certainly not going to act without a clear consensus to do so. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I fully support a reduction in the protection level to semi-protect, with the understanding that any attempt to reinsert the link (for now) will not be allowed and may result in full protection being restored. Hopefully editors will recognize that edit warring will yield nothing on this front and we can have an article that people can work on. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd support reducing to semi-protection for now to allow improvements to be made. If edit-warring resumes, the page can always be re-protected. Acalamari 00:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. There's enough good-faith interest in improving the article that a semi-pp would be warranted. I'll add that enough eyes are fixed on this article to quickly handle shenanigans, and that full-pp is available at need. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Per Acalamari. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I can throw support behind a semi-protect. seicer | talk | contribs 02:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds fine by me. --- RockMFR 05:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree here.--Hu12 (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Definitely. See how it goes, at least. --Kakofonous (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note - I have added a comment to the url field in the infobox to say it was intentionally omitted, in order to alert anyone coming to this article unaware of the disagreement or arbcom decision.Wikidemo (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)