Talk:YTMND/Archive 1

message: Both of these are incorrect:
* picard.ytmnd.com/ Example of a YTMND - The Picard Song, previously the most viewed YTMND.
* ualuealuealeuale.ytmnd.com/ Second Example Batman: ualuealuealeuale, currently most viewed YTMND.
Furthermore, the list on ytmnd is updated constantly, so putting those up there is a useless waste of space. 71.241.239.93 03:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where on Earth you're getting the impression that that's incorrect, because Picard WAS the most-viewed YTMND up until today, when Batman overtook it; something which hasn't changed for quite a while, list updating or not. No false information there. I'd also debate the "useless waste of space" argument, too, considering the "incorrect" information is in fact correct. --Shadow Hog 05:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed two of the links at the bottom 

message: I think the moderation section should be merged into history.
Here is my proposed change:
Delete the moderation section and add this to the end of the history section:
"On October 15, 2005 a stricter moderation system went into effect which deleted many YTMNDs and added user age verification before the display of any offensive or unmoderated YTMNDs."
I left the last sentence of the moderation sentence out fro this because without it the meat of the information is still there.
Anyone object? Celerityfm 21:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Made the change. Will move to inactive unless anyone has anything to add :) Celerityfm 13:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderation vs History 

message: A section should be added about the time ytmnd.com and all subsites redirected to goatse. I don't know when that happened or really anything else about it though. Hopefully someone else does.
--Ssj4android 22:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Woah? This actually happened. Damn. Perhaps the archive.org website might have something about this. Celerityfm 15:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the redirect to goatse? 

message: Deleted:
Recently max goldberg has been contacted by none other than stephanie (the popular nick junior television show star of lazy town) and her father to announce a cese and desist order on all images relating to her in any suggestive or innapropriate positions or else a lawsuit would be filed against max and the site. Already a number of ytmnd forum useres have not complied to the new rules and regulations therby being "perma-b&"(permanently banned, get it b+andpersand=b&, lolamirite?!).Any who, the users have been unbanned (most of them) but the most surprising factor of the whole ideal is that the forum was "visited" by stephanie herself! she even racked up some nice noob kills while she was there and then she suddenly dissapeared. the users and mods did thourogh background checks on her (ip address checks and timestamp checks) but nothing really turned up anything until a ytmnd forum user (currently banned now for no reason) caught the little alternate account devil in their tracks and the search was over. ending in a wild goose chase with nothing but random bannings, new mods, and stricter forum rules.
~Proud YTMND forum user Pocketjizzy
-- Zondor 01:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RECENT HISTORY 

message: Zondor added this commentary and I removed it (in my edit I stated "Info on YTMND content/how they are used should be put in fads and memes article"), then it was readded, removed, readded again and removed again. Obviously we disagree about it, so we need to talk about it. In his last edit Zondor made the following note "require brief encyclopaedic description of content" as in, he felt the article needed a brief encyclopaedic description of content found at YTMND. I argue that this is already in the article, please read on for more details:
Here is the proposed addition:
:The content of the YTMNDs on YTMND.com include a list of YTMND fads and memes, inside jokes, and news commentary. YTMNDs are often used to make a movie, musical or photo montage.
Besides going against this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Avoid_blanket_terms I also think that the article as it stands now does a great job of describing the content of YTMNDs already. Another issue with adding information like this to the article is that YTMNDs are so diverse that people will add on to this description and cruft will occur. This article has already been deleted twice... adding stuff like this to the article starts us down a path that might cause us to be put up for deletion again.
Examples as to why Zondor's addition is already covered:
:"[the first YTMND] consists of a repeated photo of actor Sean Connery and, in large zooming text, "YOURE [sic] THE / MAN NOW / DOG.COM". A recording of Connery saying "You're the man now, dog!" from the film Finding Forrester repeats continuously." (Describes the content of one YTMND in full detail)
:"Goldberg's new creation inspired others to make similar sites with other movie and television quotes." (Describes content of even more YTMNDs)
:"when major weblogs began linking to the now infamous YTMND Captain Picard tribute" (Brief description of the content of yet another YTMND)
:"The content of YTMND remains one of the most definitive examples of memes and memetics on the Internet." (This describes the content many other of YTMNDs)
:The screenshot displayed in the article illustrates the content of a YTMND.
Further, YTMNDs that are "inside jokes, news commentary and montages" are YTMND memes/fads. They are already covered in the YTMND memes and fads article and that's where they belong. 
The third time that Zondor added his content he completely removed the definitions of YTMND at the top of the page and replaced it with his new content (The previous two times he had added the content under fads and memes), so I restored that section back to the way it was before. He did however add an informative note about intertextuality under fads and memes that was pretty cool.
Sir, if you still want to add your proposed content to the article then please respond in kind. I hope you understand why I have been so rabid about deleting extra commentary in the article.. I fear admins and mods coming in and chopping our article to pieces (as they have in the past by removing things they don't think are encyclopedic) and/or deleting it again (which has happened twice already). Perhaps if we work together we can find an appropriate edit of your content that will fit in the article better rather then having to erase entire sections to make room for it. But, for the reasons I stated above I really feel like your new content does more harm then good. Does anyone else have any thoughts/ideas about this? Celerityfm 13:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: User:Celerityfm makes a majority of the edits on this YTMND article thus he or she considers he or she "owns" the article. The article should at least give a brief excyclopaedic information on the content of YTMND such as: "The content of the YTMNDs on YTMND.com is diverse and include but not limited to popular expressions such as fads and memes, inside jokes, and news commentary. YTMNDs often project a movie, musical or photo montage." Be bold in your edits. All edits are released under the GFDL. If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, please don't submit it. You're encouraged to create and improve articles. The community is quick to enforce the quality standards on every article you edit.
I am removing both the NPOV tag and the inline comment.  The boilerplate text states, "The neutrality of this article is disputed.  Please see discussion on the talk page."  However, it is obvious from both Celerityfm's comments on the talk page, and Zondor's inline comment, that the neutrality of the article is not what is in dispute here.  In fact, IMO, the text itself is (generally) NPOV.  Additionally, no actual discussion of NPOV issues occurs on the talk page.  I would ask that Zondor (a) place his comments on the talk page where they belong rather than in the article itself (whether enclosed in an HTML comment or not), and (b) not misuse the boilerplate dispute tags when the dispute tag being used does not match what is actually being disputed.  --Dachannien 08:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you Dachannien. Of course I agree with you. Just for the record I do not think that I "own" the article. Celerityfm 13:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content of the YTMNDs information 

message: An anonymous user suggested that the two be merged. I've removed the suggestion on the page until the author of the suggestion comes to talk and states their case first. Furthermore the  merge guidelines for proposing a merge state that you are to place the merge suggestion link on the source article (the one that will disappear after the merge), and the anonymous user placed the merge suggestion on BOTH articles. If they don't come forward in a week then this will move to inactive discussion. Celerityfm 15:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to inactive Celerityfm 14:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Fads? 

message: Someone put an example of an animated YTMND in the external links section today. I'm afraid that if we let that stay there then other people will start adding other "examples" and it'll become an editing challenge. Thoughts anyone? Celerityfm 18:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to inactive Celerityfm 14:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of animated YTMND ? 

message: This was added to the opening paragraph of the article. My read of it was that the author meant that Max purposefully left the about page on YTMND blank because he wanted YTMND to remain undefined.. yet he also links to the wikipedia entry, so I'm not sure if the author is correct. So rather then delete it entirely, I figured we could chat about it here if anyone was so inclined. Celerityfm 13:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "YTMND's about page briefly describes the about section as under construction, nothing else and points to the YTMND article on Wikipedia to describe itself. This may suggest that YTMND intentionally leaves itself undescribed to continue to be defined."
Will move this into inactive discussions next week if this is still inactive by then. Celerityfm 14:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Moved to inactive Celerityfm 14:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About page reference? 

message: The entry on postmodernism looks like it was generated by the www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/ Postmodernism Essay Generator :P I mean, it looks like it makes sense but I remain skeptical as to it's relevance. My main concern is whether it's the kind of thing that will lead to admins/mods tearing up our article again. I'm going to delete it if no one vouches for it by 9/19/05.
: I would support it's deletion. Despite sounding generated, it is also rather unsubstantiated. -- Jon Dowland 14:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the removed text that made up the Postmodernism section "The YTMND phenomenon represents a provocative example of postmodern culture.  It can be recognized as a product of the current philosophical state of society, postmodernism.  Each individual creation on YTMND, while unique in itself, is an amalgamation of preexisting concepts, images, and sounds.  Thus, the sites generally lack originality.  The sites demonstrate the notion of 'copies of copies' introduced by Baudrillard in his studies with Simulacra.  In addition, the portal embraces the ideas of cynicism and apathy, and strongly emphasizes the role of the indifferent observer in its approach."
If noone wants to talk about this further I'll move it to inactive discussions at the beginning of October unless someone objects :) Celerityfm 14:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Moved. Celerityfm 14:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postmodernism? 

message: I went ahead and organized this into sections so it'll be easier to read and discuss without crosstalk. Additional discussion on how to organize the talk page can go in this section :) Celerityfm 14:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved inactive discussions into a new section and made those discussions subsections of that new section, in descending date order. Cool? Celerityfm 18:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk Page Reorganization

message: Have you nothing better to do than this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YTMND&diff=20027505&oldid=20027402 
:p Ghost Freeman  T  |  E /  C |  D 04:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly kids 

message: Wow Kraftstoff, great stuff! Most of it concerns the forums though so I suggest we move the forums part of it up into the section about the forums. What do you think sir?
And speaking of forums, what are you referring to when you say "merged" on the forums-- are you saying that 2 seperate people's accounts were moved into one account that is controlled by 1 person and the other lost it or was it 1 person with multiple accounts that got merged into one?
As far as the commentary on the main site's state being uncertain, I'd be so sad if YTMND went away again. Can you provide some forum posts/comments by Max/etc showing that YTMND is in danger of going away again? Or is it just complaints going on in the forums/site comments. I'm sad that the forum is going away too but YTMND will not go away after the forums are gone. The way Max has been improving it/building on it, it seems that YTMND is stronger then ever and here to stay for good.
Celerityfm 18:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc Chatter

message: I originally added the Captain Picard tribute in the external links because I mentioned it in the Origins section of the article and also linked to the external links section from that section so that the reader could view the tribute. Sakebalboa removed the picard tribute from the external links citing "self promotion"-- so I reverted it in the hopes that Sakebalboa would see the reversion and come to the talk section to discuss reasons for removing it so we could come to some kind of concensus on it. Personally I think the Picard tribute is such an important part of the YTMND history that it deserves its own special link in the external links section. What do you all think? Celerityfm 13:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we should remove it from External Links, BUT, add it to the Fads and Memes section right next to its mention, and, likewise, add links to the first instance of every mentioned meme (and mention which ones aren't work-safe, like, say, Ridin' Spinnas). --Shadow Hog 01:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: It's been a week without any objections so I moved the Captain Picard Tribute out of external links and added a link to it's YTMND next to it in the fads section as shadowhog suggested. If there isn't any further discussion on this by next week then we should move this section towards the bottom of the talk page unless their are any objections to that? :) Celerityfm 20:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Captain Picard Tribute in the external links?

message: Needs stuff about X-YTMND/Lol the internet--Keith, evil dude 22:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: X-YTMND Discussion

message: Is this entry sufficiently encyclopaedic to stay? Its subject seems suspiciously esoteric to me.
--80.1.224.6 07:30, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Outmoded Article Removal Discussion

message: Is it really from Finding Forrester? I remember an identical soundbyte from the movie The Rock, when Sean Connery's character is leaving the island, leaving Nicholas Cage's character to save the hostages.
:Yeah, it is.  I remember seeing and hearing the EXACT same sound clip while watching Finding Forrester in an English class. -djflipstarx @ 128.120.57.147 18:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of the soundbyte "You're the man now, Dog!" 

message: Anybody know what ytmnsfw stands for?
:You're the Man Not Safe For Work? --Shadow Hog 14:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ytmnsfw? 

message: Please put new discussions above this header.Since it's looking likely that that page will be utterly deleted, I'm putting the not-list contents here, in case anything - ANYTHING - here can be rewritten into the main article. At least a description of the fads would be nice (I don't think the current paragraph is a definition), and something to that effect should be in here. --Shadow Hog 22:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible stuff to merge from [[List of YTMND fads]] 

message: Holy crap, that's alot of juxtapositioning! I believe that I originally used the term juxtaposition in the article, but now I think that it's no longer accurate: Nowadays YTMNDs can consist of a single image, not neccesarily tiled, and without sound and without text. So unless the image itself contains a juxtoposition, then there is nothing juxtaposed and hence the article is now innaccurate. As much as I love the word (thanks Piers Anthony!), I think it's time to pull the plug on it. Anyone else object? Celerityfm 22:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say so then we'll keep it :) Celerityfm 04:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juxtaposition? 

message: Wow, the forums section is pretty detailed! Maybe a bit too detailed. Especially since the top of this talk article says not to add any more forums stuff to the article :P So. Lets nip this one in the bud? Or should there be a forum section? I'm just trying to protect the article from being chopped up by mods again, deleted, or from becoming to overgrown/less useful. So I think we should discuss this :)
My vote is no, we should not have a forums section in the YTMND article. The YTMND Forums used to have their own article, but that article was deleted. I think you'll agree with me on this if you take a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_7#YTMND_Forums VFD discussion about the YTMND Forums article and consider the points brought up in that discussion when making your decision. Thanks! Celerityfm 03:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The YTMND forums are dead, and there's not much chance of having them back up. Thus, I think they deserve atleast a little section. (I noticed this unsigned comment at the bottom of the talk so I moved it up here) Celerityfm 00:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Made the changes, and then some. Hope everyones happy with them :) If not, please sound off here. Celerityfm 00:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forum section 

message: the official ytmnd irc channel is now located on irc.ytmnd.com/ytmnd irc.ytmnd.com, as displayed on the website. please refrain from including irc-related information on the main page unless instructed otherwise by max himself; it's really not encyclopaedic.. whatsoever. thanks. jon 00:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC channel 

message: Removed silly line "Extra British-American users mock simply, 'Wily old Richard locked David.' (Read under lines entering scripture)" from initial paragraph. (being that it's bound to start an edit war as it spells out "ebaums world rules").
:Yes, thanks for that. I encourage everyone to continue removing this line if it reappears (don't forget WP:3RR, though]]). Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine, after all.SoothingR 00:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  redaction 

message: In the list of YTMND fads article it says, "The phrase was born from frequently threatened police and FBI intervention during a string of forum raids in the summer of 2005."  I find no further information on this on wikipedia or a google search.  What happened?  The FBI raided forums? DyslexicEditor 14:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A common practice of YTMND forum users is to "raid" forums. Usually, this is done by organizing a large group of people to all sign up at a particular forum and post hentai or goatse or generally get themselves banned. --74.228.220.248 19:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FBI? 

message: Why was it removed? Klosterdev 08:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where'd the section on YTMND day go? 

message: It's like it was written by somebody that joined in the fall of 2005. Most of it is about the ebaumsworld bullshit.
:Then why don't you improve it? The more cut back on that subject, the better. -Whomp 23:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the history section is stupid 

message: What the hell is this segment on the bottom of the article?
Was it written by a 14 year old Thai kid and then translated into English by a semi-literate Dutch child?
:That has to be the most bizarre personal attack I've ever heard. Regardless, someone probably agreed with you and excised it. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 00:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hacking Feature" 

message: The entry for YTMND is biased towards those who are fans of YTMND.  There is a large backlash against it online (which more often than not starts flame wars on forums and ends in the entire thread, with plenty of good points, being deleted), which is which I believe there should be a "Criticism" section.
Common criticisms include:
* There is not a lot of humor value to most YTMNDs, that it's just a tired parody that wasn't so good to begin with.
* It takes little effort and no talent to create a YTMND, while many flash animators, video editors and web designers work hard learning their craft and spend days or even weeks making something that may or may not become the next big internet fad.
* Most YTMNDs are merely quotes from other sources with a picture of whoever said it; in most cases it was funny the first time and so there is no reason to do it again.
* Many YTMNDs borrow from several sources without giving credit to who created what was borrowed.  Key examples include a YTMND with Cookie Monster as the tiled background, and the song "The Internet is for Porn" from Avenue Q as the background music, and the Picard Song.  In most cases the YTMND becomes more famous than the source material, taking credit away when credit is due. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lord Ramco (talk • contribs) 12:25, April 29, 2006 (UTC).
:You have some good points there. First, however the whole thing needs to be NPOV. I could write that section, but I'm afraid I may bias it. Why don't you start it off? -Whomp 19:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that these are good points. As for the first three, they're simply arguments that the site sucks. These aren't 'common criticisms'; they're the opinions of people who just don't think that the site is funny. We're not going to tack on any 'by the way, ytmnd is stupid and it doesn't make me laugh' to the section because it's just not legitimate criticism. Granted the articles shouldn't say 'ytmnd.com is funny', but neither is there a need for 'ytmnd is not funny'. About your last point, though-- I love fanimutations as much as the next man, but they borrow from multiple orders of magnitude more sources than ytmnds. -Nick Kostalas
Lord Ramco 05:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't go so far as to say they are reasons why the "site sucks"; I believe they are fair arguments, and to have a truly balanced and nonbiased article there needs to be criticism.  Nearly every other Wikipedia entry of this nature contain notes of common criticism, yet the YTMND not only has no negative information, its entry is actually being used as the official "About" section, and when that happens it proves that it is not static, objective and unbiased.  I personally feel that the article is bordering on a fluff piece for YTMND rather than an objective look at the site, as well as the complete public opinion about it in a societal context.  I am greatly offended by the way you phrased your comment, Mr. Kostalas; I never said that the site sucks or did I mean to say that in what was posted, I merely wanted to balance the article out and make sure it contains information that is not only relevant but important to the source material.  Lastly, the criticisms I posted in the entry were not my own words, but general consensus from those critical of the fad as a whole, which I believe to be very important in balancing the article on both sides.  I'd suggest you look at the eBaums World entry to better see my intentions, as it brutally and honestly states the criticism and controversy surrounding it in one section (and is objective in saying so), and is well-grounded, factual and fair in the rest of the entry.  -Lord Ramco
I mean no offense, but I'm going to have to disagree, as they way they are currently worded they sound very much like one person's opinion on the subject, and not a nonbiased analysis of a general consensus.  If something along these lines is to be included, and I do not see why it should not be, they should be reworked. (unsigned)
I'm gonna have to agree with the above, this is so far from being even relevant. There are small pockets of people who think everything isn't funny, whether it's Charlie Chaplin or Mike Meyers or Homestar Runner. Noting "some people don't think it's funny" is entirely pointless. (70.71.162.88 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Substituted at 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment