Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cddoughty (talk | contribs) at 20:17, 17 August 2009 (→RFC: whitelisting the "About" page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:17, 17 August 2009 by Cddoughty (talk | contribs) (→RFC: whitelisting the "About" page)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Encyclopedia Dramatica article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Websites: Computing

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet culture Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Comedy Mid‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Misplaced Pages Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Multidel

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Possible source?

News article mentioning ED.--I've Never Been to Me (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, put that in please.--Whaaa aaahW? (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Displaying external link

Besides the distressing and shocking nature visitors would be unaware of, on http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/encyclopediadramatica.com users reported browser exploits and malware.

Yawn. We've discussed this several times before, and the conclusion seemed to be that ED itself does not contain anything harmful to your computer, but that you should take care when clicking links (much as you should anywhere else on the internet). -- Bobyllib (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't usually comment on or edit Misplaced Pages, but I can't believe there isn't a better warning on the external link or in the website description. Terms like "crude", "offensive", "obscene", and "shock value" are too vague; these are the kind of words that could just as easily describe network TV by media critics.

"Take care when clicking links"? That's good general advice, but it doesn't apply so much to ED, where a benign thumbnail picture links to a shock image. I'm adding a warning to the external link. 77.222.43.93 (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh... never mind. Can't edit. But honestly, would it hurt to add "contains extreme graphic violence" warning? I'm not looking for a discussion; I'm probably never coming back to this page, I just wanted to write something so some poor unsuspecting person doesn't wander into this because they did not understand the extent of the material. 77.222.43.93 (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC: whitelisting the "About" page

Should we whitelist the link to ED's "About" page? It has been used as a reference for months with no problems. Also, it's a fully-protected page that only admins edit, and is actually a serious page. A request to the local whitelist was made here, but the admin rejected until it was shown that there was "arbcom, foundation or equivelent community support" for the whitelisting. I choose community support, so here we are. Please opinate if there is a problem or not with whitelisting this page:

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:About

Past discussions:

Arbcom links:

--Enric Naval (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Support --Abd (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "equivalent support" couldn't be determined here, but this could be a good basis for seeking it. An RfC on an article talk page isn't equivalent to ArbComm or the Foundation. I'd argue that if the nowiki'd URL has stuck, it's sufficient evidence for an actual link. If it shouldn't be linked, it shouldn't have a nowiki link either! --Abd (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I highly doubt the page will remain a "serious page" if we link to it. Not sure if that matters. Over all I'm neutral on this issue. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Support Effectively the same thing as having the base domain whitelisted. Protonk (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Support per WP:NOTCENSORED. --Alexc3 04:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Support adding to whitelist. On the offchance that they redirect it to goatse or something equally silly, we can just delink it. Firestorm 04:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Support Nobody is going to change the content of that page. It is full protected page that has only had 3 edits since 2006. -- Zaiger_talkplx 02:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a culture that idolizes trolling... I doubt they will let the opportunity pass. Anyway... yeah, we can de-link it without too much issue. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Support to get rid of another of the vestiges of BADSITES still hanging around. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Support The rational for blacklisting it is not nearly strong enough, IMHO. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Support it can be changed back if the page gets edited to something bad.--Cddoughty (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Some People Say

I thought we weren't supposed to use the term "some people say" on wikipedia. In the Content section, first paragraph there is a line that reads "...which some argue implies that it is a platform from which to intentionally provoke a negative emotional response." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paskari (talk • contribs) 08:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's called a "weasel word" and yes, it would be better if we avoided it. How would you recommend the section be reworded? -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is this protected again?

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It had no vandalism for about 7 hours from when it was unprotected then it got vandalised 4 times in 9 minutes and you reprotect it? If you did this with every article nearly all pages would be protected. I am requesting unprotection again.--Cddoughty (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You made a few trivial edits last time you requested it to be unprotected. This was after you caused drama, made uncivil comments, and wouldn't answer any questions as to why you wanted the entry unprotected (I'm assuming it was to make trivial edits). I would be happy to restore the thread on this talk page which makes makes me question your good-faith. Why do you want it unprotected this time? It is up to you to provide a valid reason for unprotection. Wperdue (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your request was denied at WP:RPP by Syrthiss. A single purpose account making a request like that isn't going to happen. Like he said, try again in 6 months to a year. Momo san 14:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the re-protection. Coincidentally, you're now auto-confirmed and can happily edit the article in peace. If any new users actually want to make substantive edits to this article, they can drop by my talk page or WP:RFPERM and request the 'confirmed' userright. Best regards, –xeno 14:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's so silly how this article gets treated differently to every other article. I didn't ask for unprotection so I could edit, I asked for it to be unprotected because it shouldn't have been protected according to all your guidelines and policies. You should add this to WP:PROTECT - "The protection policy does not apply to a select few articles such as Encyclopedia Dramatica because...". I don't know what comes back because, because you haven't told me. It should be added because it is entirely true and relevant.--Cddoughty (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Unprotecting no matter how many times you ask just won't happen, end of story. Momo san 15:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism...". Nearly 2000 articles are protected in this manner. –xeno 15:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

4 ip edits is not heavy and persistent vandalism.--Cddoughty (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How many different ways do you need to be told no? You've already been declined at RFPP. Why are we still having this discussion? You're starting to get a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Smashville 15:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to find out why admins are so flagrantly ignoring policies.--Cddoughty (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You have to take the article's entire history into account. As the unprotecting admin, I endorse the re-protection. Enough trolling, I'm closing this thread. –xeno 16:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Categories: