| Revision as of 18:48, 3 June 2005 editInShaneee (talk | contribs)15,956 edits →Speedy deletion← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:14, 4 June 2005 edit undoSchmuckyTheCat (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers23,945 edits →Speedy deletionNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| ******So how can we repair this? Because it is a notable website with plenty of secondary information availiable. We obviously don't want it deleted, so how about giving us some help instead of trying to make this a speedy when it's not and flinging mud? What do you need from me to make this palatable for you and I'll fix it. --] 17:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) | ******So how can we repair this? Because it is a notable website with plenty of secondary information availiable. We obviously don't want it deleted, so how about giving us some help instead of trying to make this a speedy when it's not and flinging mud? What do you need from me to make this palatable for you and I'll fix it. --] 17:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ******* It was already spelt out several times: independednt solid references to discussion of this site. Blogs, chat rooms and forums won't do, unless the comments are made by notable persons, e.g., those who warrant wikipedia articles (I hope the latter remark will not make you to write a wp-article about your buddy for this sole reason) and the remarks are in permanent place. ] ] 17:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) | ******* It was already spelt out several times: independednt solid references to discussion of this site. Blogs, chat rooms and forums won't do, unless the comments are made by notable persons, e.g., those who warrant wikipedia articles (I hope the latter remark will not make you to write a wp-article about your buddy for this sole reason) and the remarks are in permanent place. ] ] 17:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ******I think you're just mistaken. The site itself is a primary resource. ] 14:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ******* Besides, the site's creator was thinking about wikipedia when he made this site does NOT mean that it actually has any relation to wikipedia. Even if the site was made by a wikipedian, that's still not a connection worthy of ANY sort of mention. --] 18:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) | ******* Besides, the site's creator was thinking about wikipedia when he made this site does NOT mean that it actually has any relation to wikipedia. Even if the site was made by a wikipedian, that's still not a connection worthy of ANY sort of mention. --] 18:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:14, 4 June 2005
I removed this attack from the bottom of this article. Nomination for Vfd should have been enough, without this vandalism of the article. Someone may want to take note and action. I haven't the time right now to judge wether other vandalism has occured, so someone may want to compare historys. I have no dog in this hunt, but if arty's on websites are wikipedia topics, this one deserves fair consideration since it was Wikispawned, if for no other reason. I also wonder whether this is an 'Advert', but I'm too new to have a handle on all the wiki policies extant on this stuff. Fabartus 01:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What should have been here instead of in Article
The site uses MediaWiki software to mimic Misplaced Pages conventions, such as this disclaimer template:
This article is crap. You can help by completely re-writing it.According to the founders of Encyclopædia Dramatica, the mission of Encyclopædia Dramatica is to provide the ultimate compendium of Internet parody and humor. However, it frequently deviates from this goal, producing somewhat humorous articles on a wide range of topics, most of which are not necessarily classifiable as satire. Humor of all categories enters the wiki, prompting an equally freeflowing response, such as the vandalistic classification of sexual fetishes as relating to "Unhealed Childhood Trauma".
Because of the open nature of Encyclopædia Dramatica, which began as a collection of personal attacks, Encyclopædia Dramatica itself suffers from vandalistic attacks similar to those of other wikis. For example, occasionally people blank entire pages, make legal threats or add messages that insult other users. The creation of humor is not entirely material to random acts of text insertion. Indeed, the effort required to write one article on the Encyclopædia Dramatica of good quality may even exceed the effort required to produce a factual article on Misplaced Pages. Good humor may be more difficult than good information, as there is a correct or publically accepted form of a fact, but not necessarily a universal joke.
That's all for now! Fabartus 01:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That's actually quite true about ED. I don't see anything I can construed as vandalism. --Tydaj 01:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
- For the prior VFD discussion of Encyclopedia Dramatica, now a redirect to this article, see Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica.
- The decision was to delete basing on nonnotability. The page has been recreated without undeletion procedure. No new proof of notability is provided. Therefore the page is candidate for speedy deletion. It will be deleted unless independent references will be provided from authoritative sources. Blogs and forums don't count, folks. mikka (t) 21:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I added why it's notable: because it has a relation to Misplaced Pages. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 01:34, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Removing technical notices without discussion is inadmissible. Also you cannot add links to wikipedia technical pages. And you must not add external links inside article body. There is a special section "external links" for this. Has relation to wilipedia is not a sufficient reason of notability. I am related to wikipedia, b`ut I don't have artickle about myself. mikka (t) 16:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This is not the Encyclopedia Dramatica article, though. A speedy for recreation wouldn't apply here, but perhaps at the redirect. In fact, as this isn't a repost of a formerly deleted article, but a new article based around a notable website, I'm removing the speedy tag, as it does not fall under the qualifications for speedy deletion as noted at the speedy deletion page. Now, I'm starting to question the good faith, too. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Notability is not proven by independent research. All what is written in the article is original research. Most facts are verifiable only from the website in question. This is inadmissible in wikipedia. I'm starting to question the good faith, too, when seeing this kind of blind eye. mikka (t) 17:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- So how can we repair this? Because it is a notable website with plenty of secondary information availiable. We obviously don't want it deleted, so how about giving us some help instead of trying to make this a speedy when it's not and flinging mud? What do you need from me to make this palatable for you and I'll fix it. --Badlydrawnjeff 17:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It was already spelt out several times: independednt solid references to discussion of this site. Blogs, chat rooms and forums won't do, unless the comments are made by notable persons, e.g., those who warrant wikipedia articles (I hope the latter remark will not make you to write a wp-article about your buddy for this sole reason) and the remarks are in permanent place. mikka (t) 17:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think you're just mistaken. The site itself is a primary resource. SchmuckyTheCat 14:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- So how can we repair this? Because it is a notable website with plenty of secondary information availiable. We obviously don't want it deleted, so how about giving us some help instead of trying to make this a speedy when it's not and flinging mud? What do you need from me to make this palatable for you and I'll fix it. --Badlydrawnjeff 17:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Notability is not proven by independent research. All what is written in the article is original research. Most facts are verifiable only from the website in question. This is inadmissible in wikipedia. I'm starting to question the good faith, too, when seeing this kind of blind eye. mikka (t) 17:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This is not the Encyclopedia Dramatica article, though. A speedy for recreation wouldn't apply here, but perhaps at the redirect. In fact, as this isn't a repost of a formerly deleted article, but a new article based around a notable website, I'm removing the speedy tag, as it does not fall under the qualifications for speedy deletion as noted at the speedy deletion page. Now, I'm starting to question the good faith, too. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Removing technical notices without discussion is inadmissible. Also you cannot add links to wikipedia technical pages. And you must not add external links inside article body. There is a special section "external links" for this. Has relation to wilipedia is not a sufficient reason of notability. I am related to wikipedia, b`ut I don't have artickle about myself. mikka (t) 16:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I added why it's notable: because it has a relation to Misplaced Pages. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 01:34, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Besides, the site's creator was thinking about wikipedia when he made this site does NOT mean that it actually has any relation to wikipedia. Even if the site was made by a wikipedian, that's still not a connection worthy of ANY sort of mention. --InShaneee 18:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)