Talk:EBaum's World/Archive 1

message: I was under an impression that for some time this article had removed the Corporation Template. It seems like someone's knocked this article back some months, well before the split and re-merge of the controversy article. While I personally advocate that the controversy section inform users and potential financiers or backers of eBaum's World, there seemed to be some consensus that it be trimmed. I have long since left the edit war so I don't want to be doing that all over again. Someone more experienced with time on their hands can bring it back to where reason left off. Bilious 01:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concern over revision/s

message: I have no particular attachment to either EBaum's World or Something Aweful, but maybe this case of "POV" is simply that the website in question is one which generates more criticism than respect. In that case, it's not POV, it's just unfortunate fact. --66.229.183.101 20:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...Or maybe they're just assholes 

message: I am an external observer on this one, but obviously, this is a NPOV article, if only for lines such as "It is undertermined as to whether or not Bauman was making an anti-Semitic remark, or if he is himself Jewish and improperly invoking a reference sure to be lost on YTMND's users."  My initial reaction is that Bauman sounds scummy, but this article comes across more just as a indictment of Bauman than anything. — WCityMike (T | C) 22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Label

message: Ok, this will contribute absolutely nothing towards improving the page, but it's so brilliantly funny, I just got to post this link www.newgrounds.com/portal/view.php?id=276616, though I must warn it may not be safe for work (I think it is, but others may disagree). Cheers!--Vertigo200 14:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And Neil keeps on delivering quality music. You can download the MP3 at www.ebaumsworldsucks.com/ --BodyTag 13:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something funny 

message: Should we include a part about the corporate information regarding Ebaum's World? I mean, a small comparison with similar sites, Newgrounds, Somethingawful, Miniclip... shows no equivalent and, quite honestly, I don't see the point of having it here.--Vertigo200 01:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate Information 

message: It occurs to me that it might not be a bad idea to have a section summarizing the evident dispute between eBW and SA. There appears to be a lot of misinformation floating about from both sides. Does someone with to draft a section here? A good place to start would probably be when the image in question was first created. I'd do it myself, but I'm not familiar enough with the issue. 07:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section about dispute between SA and eBW? 

message: What is the source on the employee count and owning an office building?  And is the office building owned by the corporation or one of the directors/founders/owners?  And what does "own" mean in this sense?  Including the purchase price of the building offers indications about the corporation's revenue, but if depending on the payment structure, that could be very misleading, especially if the company isn't the one purchasing the property.
All the references to the founder as the operator of the site and sole contributor seem to contradict the 20 employees count.  Additionally, it seems that the vast majority of stories (which aren't even encyclopedic to begin with) have real NPOV issues and were likely written by the site's owner. Dbchip 20:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verify/NPOV/Cleanup 

message: I just had a looksee over at fark.com and noticed that the link to ebaumsworld under the 'site friends' side tab had indeed been removed. Possibly retalitory? A big coincidence because according to the artilce users of YTMND were recuiting users of various websites, one of them being fark. --guest--
I e-mailed Fark's admin Drew to ask him why ebaumsworld was a friend on Sunday, in light of the events and the fact that fark.com is a banned word on ebaumsworld (as reported in this article). He said
didn't realize that last part. I think you're right and it was removed as of Monday morning. No idea how many others e-mailed him, possibly a few. I think this might be worth editing the article about. Stevemcl 16:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: eBaums world still has Fark as under "Great Sites" on their frontpage. 68.84.210.75 05:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ebaum removed from friends 

message: doesnt exist foo
:This is Wikipedia, not Whatever-you-want-reported-pedia, so "secret" websites such as LUELinks, WDMA and GSD do indeed exist, and we can make articles about them if they are verifiable and notable. Ashibaka tock 01:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luelinks? 

message: Any chance we can rephrase or remove the 'no recruit' warning message.  It sounds really rude and snarky--Virulent 78 02:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that it is needed (or useful) right now. Removing. Ashibaka tock 02:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning Message

message: I found an article earlier detailing the attacks on the eBaums site as they happened. Would the link to mk.pupiljuice.com/raidnews/ that article be appropriate for addition to this Wikipedia article under the External Links Section? CeeWhy 04:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article on eBaums invasion

message: There is now an official response from Bauman on his web site. www.ebaumsworld.com/response-01-10-05.html The Wikipedia article has been updated to reflect his response and views on how he uses the content on his site. He gives a link to a definition of Cyberterrorism from a non-government site www.crime-research.org/library/Cyberterrorism.html whose definition of "cyberterrorism" differs greatly from the Wikipedia article. While Eric Bauman neither mentions YTMND nor Lindsay Lohan, he does provide a vague link to the animation in question (albeit his own watermarked one).
His claim of vandalism is technically true but without merit - the vandalism consisted of two pieces of paper being taped (scotch tape) onto the front door of his 'corporate HQ'. There are pictures if you can find them but the ytmnd that showed this was deleted (the image is here: img135.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ebaumshouse5wt.jpg). FireballX301 01:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eric Bauman Responds

message: "I am now sending a formal cease and desist letter via certified mail."
from ytmnd.com/sites/profile/190419, comments section. Maybe this should be added to the article when unprotected? Tokakeke 00:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maker of the animation sends C&D, apparently

message: Is this genuinely an anti-semitic remark? I think someone knowledgeable in Jewish idiomatic language ought to weigh in on this. --24.98.104.114 22:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After some google searching and sifting, I found www.evangelist.org/archive/htm2/0426riit.htm this article, which seems to indicate that it's an expression for someone's "head for business". I think it's quite likely that this is not an anti-semitic remark, but merely an expression used by one Jewish man criticizing another, albeit one unfamiliar to many readers. --24.98.104.114 22:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been wondering what that meant. Didn't stop us from taking the piss about it though. I wouldn't have suspected antisemitism or anything though, them both being jewish. assuming max is, that is. --ReidComyn 00:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article has lost it's Yiddish cup. - Ferret 03:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yiddish cup?

message: The Controversy section of this article is in a very strange order. I'll go ahead and put in in chronological order (at some point in the near future) if that's OK with everyone. -- gtdp (talk)(contribs) 15:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronologic order? 

message: One notable aspect of this that the article is lacking is the legal section of the ebaumsworld, where ebaum apparently openly acts against the will of the authors... such postings as “The makers of the Smurfs/G.I. Joe/whatever want their cartoons taken off our site... come see the cartoons by clicking here!” ad nauseum fill this section, and it seems to have the connotation of rebelliousness and sarcasm against the authors if I am reading it correctly.  This page clarifies ebaum's position on the controversy.
136.165.84.139 17:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ebaums' Legal Section 

message: The data seems mostly bogus and should be removed or sources cited:
*It lists the company as being founded in 1998 and the sole product being ebaumsworld.com.  However, according to the domain's registrar, the domain was registered on 15-Nov-01.
*It lists the revenue as $6000+ a day.  Do companies that aren't publicly traded or owned usually release revenue figures?  And does any reputable company release figures on a "per day" basis?  Traditional methods are by quarter or fiscal year.
*20 employees?  That is a highly unlikely figure for a web site that appears to be a father/son garage business.  Sources, anyone?
Dbchip 18:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think moderators fall under the employees header, and he probably has content finders. As for how much money the guy gets, maybe it's a calculated estimate from the average ad revenue cross referenced with hits, but I cannot see it being far off that. - Ferret 21:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I understand your point... but it is vital for our information to be sourced here.  I think Dbchip gave a good point, eBaumsworld derserves just as much privacy as somethingawful or ytmnd on profits.  Unless there is cited information of this site making that much, I don't see why would want to put that revenue in there.  And for that matter, the employees, and founded list.  Am I saying your wrong? No.  Am I saying you need sources? Yup.--Depakote 13:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand, I was not giving forward reasons why the information should stay, I was citing reasons why this may have come to be placed in the article in the first place. I do agree that sources are needed. - Ferret 17:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did unstand, cardinal rule: Have sources first. If you don't have the sources, then no, there is no reason why you would want a corporate template. Let's focus on the quality of our information... But hey, You can always sandbox. --Depakote 21:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Company 

message: :"YTMND users have persuaded others from Newgrounds, 4chan, adult swim, KNova, Fark, D-Day, GameFAQs (mainly the notorious private community LUE and its independent sister community LUElinks), to help with the raid, although no direct link can be made from the other web communities to the attack as of yet. Other web communities have been rumored to be in the raid; these include Genmay, Interflop, MySpace, Gamespy, IGN and Gaia Online."
Can someone please provide a link to these "rumors"? Especially the last list, as I don't think a few of those are capable of such a thing (IE MySpace, "Gaia Online", "adult swim", etc) --Snafuu 23:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My proposition would be instead of giving out com 'credit' for this, instead we can simply state that "other smaller communities" joined together.  I look on Google News about all this and I see one topic that is actually related,www.theinquirer.net/?article=28898.  So far all I see in this whole conspiracy issue is basically only noticed on: 1) The ytmnd, SA forums/community and 2) the blogs of the people who are in the community. So, sources would be nice.  Also, notability. Sure, this is ground-breaking for people who are stuck up in their own culture at SA forums, but do real people care?  And if they do, how much? How specific do we need to get? --Depakote 21:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Websites involved? 

message: First a disclaimer: I'm coming to this situation pretty neutral, because I am not a regular visitor of any of the sites involved.
I'm in agreement that the article is pretty biased against eBaum (I think that much is obvious just from the article content). However, I've read through the (IRC?) chat transcript of the conversation between ALTF4 (owner of the ebaumsworldsucks domain), and I do think that helps erase some of the bias. While Eric Bauman requested the discussion remain private, I think the transcript paints him in a positive light. Mainly because he kept his cool and remained serious while ALTF4 was pretty unprofessional and made some rather unfortunate comments (Such as saying he'd take down the site if Eric paid him one million dollars).
I'm trying to look at this without judging either side in the overall debate, but from the perspective of somebody who only knows what is going on from what is available for reading in the media, I think the chat transcript goes a way towards reducing the anti-ebaum bias a bit.
Honestly, I'm rather surprised that ALTF4 would post the transcript considering how it hurts his cause by portraying him (himself) in a bad light.
- Guspaz 22:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Altf4 is a pretty big jerk, if that conversation is indeed true (it is HIM that publicizes on his site).  But that isn't the point, heh, is this conversation notable?  If so, is it relevant enough to the ebaumsworld website to be posted on THIS very article?  I'm not going to fight it/force it.. I just want what's best. --Depakote 01:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You must understand that Altf4 had already posted most of the transcript in a thread at somethingawful before Eric Bauman asked him to keep it private. Also note that Altf4 never agreed to keep it private. Also note that Altf4 was trying to be funny in most of the transcript, he was probably letting his emotions get in the way of actually achieving something. You must realise though, that it's biased against eBaum only because 90% of the article is about things eBaum has done wrong, I can't see what else that would be to eBaum, there's only so much you can write about how it's a catalogue of funny things. The transcript was made in AIM by the way. Altf4 does not host the ebaumsworldsucks domain by the way. I don't see how Altf4 hurts his cause? He happened to be angry at eBaum and expressed it, mostly to amuse people at the same time. To understand the circumstances of the transcript you really do have to read the thread at SA that it was posted in. The only way one would see him in a bad light is if you took his jabs a bit too seriously. Ebaum was professional yes, but only because he could see that ebaumsworldsucks.com was having an impact on the internet and eBaum was trying to control the damage. Here's a link to the thread.forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=a47b1e5504cb8046784d9cc6261edb21&threadid=1772456&pagenumber=1 Gasic 09:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The context of Neil's response was that Bauman had already attempted to go behind his back to get the site removed and Eric had threatened baseless legal action. Then in that subsequent chat, Bauman continued to patronize him.Xombie 17:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversation between ALTF4 and eBaum 

message: As fascinating as the entire Lohan animation debate between eBaum and Something Awful is, I have to ask -- does the creator of the flash animation have permission to redistribute the images of her in the first place?  Redistributing a copyrighted photograph of someone is a much more serious offense that redistributing a parody of it.  The photographs likely have a commercial value and the owner could easily demonstrate the costs associated with originally producing it and the financial impact of the loss.  If the whole controversy wasn't stupid enough to begin with, I think the fact that the original flash animation was likely a copyright violation negates any claim by the "author" of the animation and should result in the whole section being deleted from the article.  This article is a mess enough and towards the end, it reads more like a Livejournal than a Wikipedia article. Dbchip 07:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The animation debate is between eBaum and YTMND. Something Awful happens to be interested in it. Also, I believe parody is protected under the first amendment? I'm not too versed on American laws and what not. Gasic 09:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not explicitly under the first amendment, but it is protected. The original material in the parody is the intellectual property of YTMND, and ebaums violated their copyright. Jeremy Nimmo 01:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lohan Animation

message: Due to a huge amount of vandalism recently by unregistered users (Many random IPs vandalizing), I've semi-protected the article. This page was semi-protected before, which was effective in stopping the vandalism, but it has become a problem once again. I suggest we leave this page semi-protected until the feud between these groups ends. Guspaz 06:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed Good idea, Guspaz. --Depakote 16:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure you did it correctly?  Some random IP just made a vandal edit to the page. VegaDark 22:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalized again. To semiprotect a page, an admin has to do it. It isn't enough to add the protection notice template. --waffle iron 00:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, I assumed that users qualified to edit a page after semi-protection were able to semi-protect an article. I'll fill out a request for semiprotection. Guspaz 21:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected article 

message: Unless version by 144.139.33.216  was correct . . . .Mikereichold 14:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverted vanda 

message: Neutrality doesn't involving balancing the good things that can be said with the bad things to make a mostly-even picture; neutrality involves presenting all aspects of the situation, good and bad, without resorting to opinion. If ebaumsworld.com has done many "bad" things in the past, things which will make them judged negatively, it's not "biased" to put them in the article. By the definition of neutrality people are asking for in this article, we'll have to go through every Wikipedia article and fix it so that not too many good or bad things are presented. "Hey, there's too much about Gandhi's admirable qualities! We'd better not mention those and devote half the page to the time he accidentally tripped an old lady!" "What about all the GOOD things Hitler did?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.165.206.102 (talk • contribs) .
:You have a valid point and I agree with you, but, you see, this is still very much an ongoing, highly controversial topic, much of which has yet to be determined for absolute fact. For example, is Bauman actually breaking the law? Can he hence be charged in court? Aren't some of the creators of the material breaking the law themselves by making use of copyrighted images, or is parody actually fair use? None of this has been fully verified. --Antrophica 13:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is neutrality? 

message: I feel that far too much of this article is POV.  I have made an attempt to spruce the page up. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EBaum%27s_World&oldid=36583173.  I eliminated and restarted writing the controversy page as I was under belief that 90% of it is going into details that aren't very notable.  If you wanted to say... Use google hits as an example, the vocal of the Bauman letters and the Flash are 2 humorous items directed toward the site.  Before this, over 70% of the material on this site wasn't citing for the most part, and were being very POV in terms of "material being stolen from sites".  We get the point, it is a controversy the some of the material on the site is stolen, and there has been some incidents.  I am sure me and other NPOV editors will mention that some believe this, but the general "About eBaumsworld" section does not require critic too.  I am not trying to erase history, if you believe that the ebaumsworld material theft situation is so important, why not make an entire article dedicated to it? eBaum's World Controversy is an article solely dedicated to information on eBaumsworld allegations. --Depakote 02:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This works for me. Good thinking. --Antrophica 15:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, except many of the sentences in the current article lack connectors. Every sentance seems to be about a different topic with no relation to the sentance before of after it. Guspaz 20:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting the fat 

message: Just wanted to document on the talk page here that as of right now, ebaumsworld.com/legal.html leads to a 404.  It could simply be getting an update or something, but also, the link to the legal page has fallen off of the front page -- therefore, it's worth noting here in my opinion.  It's also possible the page has moved.  Would be nice if somebody else could just chime in to verify. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 19:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is down. ROJO 20:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try checking web.archive.org web.archive.org for past archives. It appears Eric Bauman and his dad are trying to get rid of any evidence for copy-infringment lawsuits for their upcoming pilot. --Tokachu 23:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In view of this apparent cover-up, is it at all appropriate that most information on the subject has been removed from here? Most of that information was NOT NPOV; rather it was verifiable fact. Rsynnott 11:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ebaum still links to his legal page on the GI Joe page www.ebaumsworld.com/gijoe.html. He's also removed Fark from his "Links" area on most pages. --Tokachu 18:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He links, yeah, but it's 404ing for me right now.  Somebody else try?  www.ebaumsworld.com/legal-hasbro.html  Alwarren@ucsd.edu 19:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal page down as of 1/27/06 11:50 Pacific 

message: I've cut out some info here that has been claimed to be incorrect. Please do not add anything further to this article without a credible cited source for it, particularly claims about controversies or illegal actions; uncited changes may be reverted. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a sandbox where we can all work on edits or something?  I'm not happy with the decision you reached on the AfD page -- merge means merge, not hand off to some admin to chop up how he she likes.  Example: if you're going to mention the "laserfart" video, you should probably mention everything at ebaumsworldsucks.com.  A simple list or something, with a sentence or two describing the process the author took to have the content removed, linked to ebaumsworldsucks.com.  Additionally, you should probably e-mail AltF4 to see if he has a more up-to-date list, as he had a rather lengthy thread going at Something Awful where he recruited goons to track down authors whose content is being hosted without consent at eBaum's (methodology was to go to eBaum's, select a random Flash video or chop, Google for it, and try to contact the author).  I believe it should be further mentioned that the submission page itself is controversial, as it's no more verifiable than, say, an "ARE YOU 18+" link on a pr0n site. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 19:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm just going to start editing the page and merging stuff from the controversy section back in tomorrow evening unless you respond that you want the article left untouched.  Others are already editing the page. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 05:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: So, what happened to all the content on the controversy article? I thought the vote was to merge the two, not to just redirect the controversy article back to the main eBaum's World article? There is still a link to the controversy article in the main article, too. 209.51.77.64 16:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, its looking a bit like someone decided to go ahead and stealth-delete it under cover of a merge. I see almost none of the information. --Talain 22:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Mindspillage, apparently the admin in charge of the AfD, states her decision  here.  Apparently she will be merging in "verifiable information" from the controversy article due to "serious complaints to Wikipedia about the unsourced statements in this article."  Personally, I think this was a poor decision.  I am also interested to know which "unsourced statements" people are complaining about.  They should do so on the talk page.  Alwarren@ucsd.edu 23:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the Keeps outnumbered the Merges makes this decision even more suspect in my opinion. Unless I am confused about how the discussion over keeping/merging/deleting takes place... 209.51.77.64 02:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the reason that the admin decided to merge is because some users felt that the separate controversy article was a POV fork.  I don't feel that's accurate, and am pretty neutral on having a separate controversy article vs throwing it into the main article.  Just to restate what was argued very well by an anonymous user above, NPOV does not mean No POV, nor does it mean balancing the good with the bad.  I also don't like the fact that User:Mindspillage seems to be a bit remiss in her duties as far as this article is concerned.  Given Bauman's attempt to assert trademark over ebaumsworldsucks.com, the recent disappearance of the "legal" page, and Mgunit's "contributions" to the article and arguments on the talk page, I wouldn't be surprised to find that eBaum's World have complained to WP. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 04:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Why do I feel that the Admin sold out to Ebaums by keeping vaulable information from the public?  This stuff is important, and witholding just is wrong.--143.200.225.101 04:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The result of the debate was Merged. I counted, and the Keeps outweighed the Merges. Something stinks. --Antrophica 10:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be fine if the Merge had been what happened, but it didn't. Somebody seems to be using "Verifiable" as an excuse to delete information they don't want around. Something's rotten in the state of Denmark.--Talain 11:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the controversy section of the article has been expanded a little, but most of the content from the seperate controversy article is still gone. I smell a rat. 209.51.77.64 17:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you guys aren't happy with the way User:Mindspillage is handling this, please leave constructive feedback on her talk page at User_talk:Mindspillage#eBaum.27s_World_AfD_merge Alwarren@ucsd.edu 18:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, intended to merge, but didn't have time to: soliciting help on that. But it was more important that the uncited information be off the page than the merge be properly carried out. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: (Note: I don't really know much about the site, and don't care about it. Just about complaints about untrue material appearing on Wikipedia.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem some of us have is that the Keeps outweighed the Merges. Could be I'm missing something. As well, the article might not have conformed entirely to a neutral point of view, but the vast majority, if not all of the information in it, was factual, and sources were cited. --Antrophica 07:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Article Content 

message: "The expected duration of this show= 3 weeks."
I'm not sure what this means; could someone fix it or figure it out? --ShadowPuppet 17:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Huh?

message: I've made an attempt at merging back in some of the material from the controversy article with citations.  I'm beginning to agree that the old controversy section was a bit verbose, but still feel strongly that all of the information needs to make it over.  I'll probably take another stab at this tonight. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 19:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good on you. 209.51.77.64 21:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt at controversy AfD merge 

message: So, there has been an agreement to merge the controversy article with the main article for ebaumsworld?  This is a bit too soon in the game, the POV fork in the road was only a temporary means to ensure quality of the main article for however long this troll war with ebaumsworld will last..  I think the merging eventually was a good idea, but a bit too soon in the game.  I think this will only be more trouble in the long run (i.e. more edit wars, etc). Gods Speed' --Depakote 14:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no agreement to merge. The keeps outweighed the merges in the deletion poll. The reason for the merge has yet to be explained. --Antrophica 06:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong Disagreement with merge 

message: Anybody have any particularly strong opinions about what-all else needs to be merged in?  I've been in contact with ebaumsworldsucks, and they'll be notifying me when they have updates ready.  I'm not sure how best to merge in the SA and YTMND content, or if it should even really be elaborated on.  I thought I had a good amount of work sitting in front of me, but as it turns out I'm actually mostly-happy with the controversy section in its present form.  I do think eBaum pulling from Sega's servers and the invisitraffic attack on SA need to be added, as they're particularly underhanded tactics.  Neil Bauman likes to carry on about how eBaum's World won't stoop to things like DDoS...  Maybe add Lohan too in order to show that eBaum's World will even attempt to appropriate high profile stuff? Alwarren@ucsd.edu 01:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last bit in the controversy section was totally loaded, so I reworded it.  I also removed mention of Super Monkey Ball and Judge Judy specifically, instead linking to the CourtTV article after the Viacom Wiki link.  I'd like to do the same for 20th Century Fox and Sega.  In the case of Fox, I would have liked to link to the eBaum's C&D letter.  Seeing as how that's not possible, I'm not sure how to cite.  I'd like to do something similar for the Sega reference, but don't know of any articles.  I'm definitely not done editing yet.  Probably a few more rounds before I'm done... Alwarren@ucsd.edu 03:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing with the AfD merge 

message: Greetings.
I've made a modification to several sections of the article. I found many of the sentences contained examples of bad grammar, improper spelling, words used improperly, that sort of thing.
Some of my changes required me to entirely re-word sentences, please note that as I did so, I took great care not to alter the POV/NPOV of any statement.
I also added a bit of clarification to the section on soundboards, and I also added a reference.
I rolled up the "bandwidth leeching" allegation into the paragraph on ebaumsworldsucks.com since that topic is covered there. Again, I took effort not to impose or alter the POV/NPOV of any portion of the article.
I believe the changes I made improve the article in each case.
BoyliciousDarian 21:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of the writing 

message: I think that typing "Eric Bauman" in search shouldn't re-direct to this page, just like typing in "Leonardo DaVinci" doesn't redirect to the "Mona Lisa". To be frank, Eric Bauman is not eBaum's World, therefore, an Eric Bauman page should be created, highlighting his life, etc. --Mofomojo 04:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I would have phrased it quite the same way, but the above poster is right...there really is no other reason to search for "Eric Bauman." Alwarren@ucsd.edu 10:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: SA Goon PovRayMan made img116.imageshack.us/img116/2885/ebaumsteal7nl.gif this animated gif from the original Worth1000 version of an image and the rebranded-with-the-EBaum's-logo version of that same image. Both PovRayMan and Jaxomlotus (who owns Worth1000) have given their explicit permission for the image to be used in the article. What do you think? DS 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a link on eBaum's World as well as a link on Worth1000? If you can cite where the images were used, then that can be added to the "Controversy" section. You'd have to make an image showing the images side-by-side (not an animated GIF) so it can be added to the eBaum's World article in the event Eric and Neil Bauman erase their tracks in the same way they erased their "Legal" section amid all the controversy. --Tokachu 23:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, don't add the arrows. We can put the description in a caption. See my addition (the ipecac video with the Patrick Swayze impersonator) for an example of what would work here. --Tokachu 23:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We would need more than permission to use it on wikipedia. There is the problem of reuse.Geni 02:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebranding 

message: The article is neutral. If there is a problem with this, either add more content which would diloute the facts which some find controversial. But his article does not cantain anything other than facts and is completley fair. Saying this article is negative is like an article about Adolf Hitler saying it is too negative about the man. 67.187.110.81 4:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article IS neutral 

message: This is strange. EBaum's World Sucks dot comebaumsworldsucks.com seems to have been taken down. Seeing as this page links to this site, which seems to have been taken down, the article should be changed to reflect this. CeeWhy 23:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct site is www.ebaumsworldsucks.com, not just ebaumsworldsucks.com. That has been fixed. --Tokachu 00:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait. They seemed to have changed the URL to www.ebaumsworldsucks.net, not dot com. I wonder why they changed the name? CeeWhy 06:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently there are some hosting problems; in the meantime, it's mirrored in a bunch of places. DS 21:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ebaumsworldsucks.com 

message: Would someone kindly archive it for ease of reading? Thank YouAngrynight 04:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Discussion Page is Too Damn Long...