Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination)

message: Bring back Tourettes Guy you assholes!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.37.216 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You guys are nazis. 

message: Is it standard for the criteria that the deletion request is based on to be edited again and again AFTER voting begins? That seems a bit crazy. rootology 22:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason not too so long as the time on the signature corresponds to the updates. (→Netscott) 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is official policy on this? It seems disengenuous as people will already have voted one way or the other. For example, if a vote is going against what is desired by the vote-maker, he can "game the system" by making it sound more heinous after the fact to try to sway things. Not saying you did this out of maliciousness, but I am concerned. rootology 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means make a post on WP:AN about this. If ever I had doubts about modifying the reasoning aftewards I wouldn't have done so. (→Netscott) 22:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the complaint after posting? 

message: Just because ED is mean and obnoxious does not make an article ABOUT it the same.  The WP article about it does not show favor or endorsement to the information and humor style on ED; t only describes it.  In essence, we have a NPOV-secure article about a controversial subject.  We should be applauding, not deleting.  These aren't good reasons to exclude an article's subject. Karwynn (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Ku Klux Klan, Adolf Hitler, Osama bin Laden, concentration camp, rape, murder, terrorism, torture.  Karwynn (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of those topics have been covered extensively in independent reliable sources, too. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If one website says something about anything, it's more than likely pure invention and shouldn't be taken seriously. In other words, A URL is not a mark of quality. It's not proof of honesty or approval from the FDA. nuff said. 201.51.36.38 (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ed is "mean, attack, etc." 

message: Does anyone see any way to close this that won't just result in a deletion review?  I fear that a DRV would end up being a pointless duplication of the Afd.  I suppose we could immediately start trying to work toward a consensus on how to close this, but then that discussion would simply become a pointless duplication of the Afd.  Is there any hope of a useful outcome?  Friday (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some admin closing this who has not voted here and has nothing to do with this mess would be a good start. --Conti|✉ 21:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AfDs oridinarily have to run their course... As I recall they take 5 or 7 days. Afterwards the closing admin(s) looks at the general consensus and the arguments provided and makes a decision for whether or not an article is kept. If it ends up on DRV it'll just be the natural course of events. (→Netscott) 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) I know how Afds usually go, but I find it hard to believe that a few more days will result in any more relevant points being made.  However I suppose an early close on such a popular Afd would be an unpopular move.  I'll admit I've been slightly tempted a few times already to just go ahead and close it as a delete, on the simple basis that WP:V is a key policy.  But I suppose there's little reason to hurry.  Friday (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree with that reasoning per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves. --Conti|✉ 22:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaking only for myself, I do not intend to use DRV assuming the closing admin either sides with me or gives a substantial explanation for their reasoning that does not ignore the WP:V and WP:OR issues raised by numerous delete supporters. I would also note, that like page protection, AFD is not a vote on the content of the article in any form, and even if the article by some infantesimal chance survives this process, it is imperitive that it folow each and every single one of our policies - from WP:BLP to WP:NOR. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing? 

message: Commentary on this new addition by him? Which part of the policy states that those editors's votes should be excluded? I don't see that specifically unless I'm not understanding some line in there. rootology 23:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author." from Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. That most certainly is applicable in this case and although the logic does not apply to "the author" it does apply to the authors' website. (→Netscott) 23:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for clarification. rootology 23:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New vanity note on closing by Netscott 

message: "lately the article has become a bit of an attack page" -- This sounds like opinion. Please cite. rootology 23:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This version that originally showed a screenshot of ED when User:MONGO was on the mainpage. That's when it "lately" was an attack article. Even badlydrawnjeff agreed with that above. (→Netscott) 23:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the image that was edited in by a troll that was banned by MONGO. Beyond that, it's been basically the same article for relative ages. rootology 23:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, and as non-notable and unverifiable as ever. (→Netscott) 23:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I didn't agree with that.  I agreed that the image was an attack.  The page itself has never been an attack page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So let's see... if the image is displayed on the page, then through simple logic does the page not take on enough attack characteristics to be labeled as such? That image seriously had undue weight and dominated the article. It's true that the article is not an "attack article" now but with the image it had displayed and a link to the site leading to a main page article that personally attacked and harassed User:MONGO the description "attack article" is plausible. (→Netscott) 01:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually, especially given the history of the image.  A simple image reversion and the problem is solved.  The page itself was never used as an attack.  The description is entirely invalid. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bottom line:  attack page problem was solved long before this AfD.  Which means it was nominated as a retalitory action.  Karwynn (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair to MONGO on this particular point, he didn't nominate it, and I see nothing to indicate that Netscott nominated it as a retailiation for MONGO in particular, but rather the incorrect perception that it was ever an attack page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  attack page 

message: :I can assure you that my owning of an ED account has not in any way influenced my opinion in this debate.  --Merovingian (T, C, @) 00:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you may want to actually point out where this vanity would apply with each of these people.  After all, we're not seeing any lists of people who've shown support for MONGO's plight, since they could just as easily be construed as having ulterior motives.  I wouldn't do that, because that's not how we should be doing things.  I hope you'd agree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vanity guideline speaks for itself. This notice is just secondary to the other valid reasons for this article's deletion. It provides the closing admins with a fuller picture relative to this whole AfD. (→Netscott) 00:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their votes cannot be safely disregarded by following the vanity guideline.  By the same token, absolutely no one would ever be able to nominate or vote on a Wikipedia AFD (not that we'd want to).  Sure, letting us know the fuller picture is a help, but claiming that their comments should be ignored is incorrect. - Hahnchen 00:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, further evidence of systemic bias. This is all rooted in retaliation for what the site the article in question is about did to MONGO the admin. rootology 00:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we'll let the closing admin(s) make the judgement call. In all honesty since User:Badlydrawnjeff is mentioning him, User:MONGO's delete vote should likely be disregarded as well. If not disregarded then certainly the weight such expressed views carry should not be equivalent to other un-involved parties. (→Netscott) 00:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Perhaps in fairness however, all comments should be counted evenly with full weight. As MONGO is a popular admin, there may be intentional or unintentional bias in many 'delete' votes here, just as their is percieved bias on the keep side. Perhaps given the circumstances *NO* admin vote should carry anymore weight than an 'editor' vote. Treat all arguments presented with even merit only. To be fair. rootology 01:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bit difficult given that those who are going to be evaluating the AfD are themselves admins here. (→Netscott) 01:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, now that you've moved it here, there's nothing obvious to point out that there's valid protest about it.  Perhaps move the whole section over here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The disclaimer is fair. (→Netscott) 01:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Jeff. This is unfair. Netscoot are you an admin? this is further bias/impartiality claims. I propose in this unique situation that a fair vote and review by regular admins is impossible. If they can't do an impartial analysis based on the extenuating circumstances, by this admission, perhaps this AfD should be immediately tabled and suspended pending a higher level review. By your statement it would be impossible for this article to get a fair admin "shake". I believe this could be in order. rootology 01:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just moved the disclaimer to the top of the section. It's the first thing read now. (→Netscott) 01:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The disclaimer says absolutely nothing about what the discussion entails, about how insanely biased your selective choosing on who should be discounted is, about the protest of the weighting altogether, or anything. To remove any critical discussion but keep your original, flawed premise is deplorable. And no, adjusting the disclaimer doesn't fix it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing's been removed... it's all right here. If you have valid concerns about the propriety of views expressed by others and have something to back up your concerns then by all means start a section. (→Netscott) 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, just convieniently out of sight, except for the part you added.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, how should that section be reworded for neutral point of view then? (→Netscott) 01:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should have either been moved over here, or the discussion kept there.  Actually, it should have never been put there in the first place, but I'll allow myself to get reeled in again and assume it was a-okay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In view of your concerns and User:Hahnchen's concerns I'm going to alter the wording. (→Netscott) 02:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You still don't seem to get it, but I'll take what I can get. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone's not "getting it" here... but the fact that there are so many folks who are editors/admins over on Encyclopædia damatica contributing to this debate should be duly noted. (→Netscott) 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but look at how you're framing it.  Look at how you moved discussion out of sight when people called you on it.  Look how you didn't bother mentioning all the people rushing to MONGO's side regardless of the facts.  Need I continue?  No one here denies their involvement, and many of us, such as myself, have been up front about it.  Your actions make it appear that you'd like us as marginalized as possible, and it's horribly transparent to anyone who bothers to come over this way, which they'd have to since you unilaterally decided our opinions weren't worthy of front page consideration.--badlydrawnjeff talk 02:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having the section become filled with talk would give it undue weight. What's funny is that the same folks with an ED account who are arguing that User:MONGO should not have utilized his admin abilities relative to the Encyclopædia damatica article due to a conflict of interest don't seem to be able to apply such logic to themselves in that those individuals shouldn't be particpating in the AfD about the article of the site they're involved in. Strange how that is. (→Netscott) 02:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely incredible.  You're now equating gross abuse of power by an admin due to his personal vendetta with your poor interpretation of a vanity guideline, and trying to defend it with some "undue weight" provision.  Man, why am I even bothering with you?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As I imagine you know, no one "owns" any particular page on Wikipedia. Therefore edit as your conscience sees fit. (→Netscott) 02:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd much rather see you do the right thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, hmm I would like to see you do the right thing (see you properly recuse yourself voluntarily and remove your corresponding commentary) but from the conviction we're putting into this debate it doesn't appear as either of us is going to change our tack. (→Netscott) 03:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason for me to recuse myself.  Your allegations that I'm acting out of vanity are completely unfounded and without merit.  You, on the other hand, have not shown any good faith through this entire process, proven time and time again.  What else can we expect? --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Badlydrawnjeff, you keep talking as though it's bad that I'm demonstrating that there indeed is a conflict of interest on the part of ED editors being involved with this AfD. Might I suggest you peruse the conflict of interest article? If you're not familiar with the concept of "conflict of interest" that artilce should rather enlighten you and hopefully you'll better understand that I'm not making accusations but just stating facts. (→Netscott) 14:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you end the condescending attitude as if I'm not understanding you.  Point it out, go right ahead.  Your moving of any protests or commentary away to the talk page, and your now hiding of it under a "conflicts of interest here!" style banner simply make it seem like any discussion to the contrary doesn't matter.  Falls right in line with everything else you've assumed since you started this AfD, from the faulty reasoning to the bad faith you've shown to other editors from the beginning.  Want to allege a conflict of interest?  Be my guest, but don't attempt to minimize those who feel differently.  You already have, and that's disappointing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Netscott has still failed to make any specific, individual claims of vanity.  Besides, I don't see anyone on the keep sides saying "keep because ED is awesome", but I see plenty of people saying "delete because they've got an article about me too :-(" or delete because this site is mean and obnoxious".  Make no mistake: this AfD is about ED itself, not its Wikipedia article.  Karwynn (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vanity section

message: Netscott said that an impartial, "fair" admin review may be difficult as I requested in the Vanity Section. I propose in these extenuating circumstances it may well be impossible. Move that this AfD be tabled pending higher than admin level review. I hate to be a pain but given how heated some admins and friends of MONGO are over the 3rd party site attack on him, and how insanely fierce EVERYONE is on every little point, that there is no way to get a clean unbiased review here. Perhaps if no higher than admin level review can be done that this whole AfD should be tabled for a set amount of time of plus one month, at which point a new one can be opened. rootology 01:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair review is unllikely to be possible regardless of how this closes at this point, kept or deleted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if I'm being included in the "friends" of User:MONGO but feel free to follow my contributions you'll find rather minimal contact between us. (→Netscott) 01:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes you look worse.  You are not an admin, but you act like you have the power of one (i.e. blanking talk page comments).  You take actions for someone without communication.  You have no ED article, but you act like you have one.  Sock puppet?  Hardvice 03:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is my whole point, I'm not motivated by hate of that site... Encyclopædia damatica is genuinely non-notable, it's article is composed of unverifiable text of an original research nature edited by ED editors demonstrating vanity... it should be deleted. (→Netscott) 03:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is edited by wikipedia editors. It should be deleted. 71.112.141.236 04:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wanna see a vanity wiki-article? See uncyclopedia. Now THAT's a heap of unverified original research vanity. At least the ED article had a criticism section. 71.112.141.236 04:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Aagin, this isn't about me demostrating good faith. It is about what criteria this article has that can be verfied by our policies to warrant inclusion. You're continued accusations against me are now very old, and I once again ask to to stop. If you think those articles are not notable, then nominate them for deletion. I am here to have someone demostrate to me why this article needs to exists and so far, no one has.--MONGO 05:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Question: if this article is recreated in time with verifiable sources, will you agree in writing to not pursue any agenda towards it in the form of aggressive tactics based on previous history with you and off-WP trolling, or the nature of it's content? rootology 07:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it's not like ED is mentioned in the guardian or anything.  Hardvice 05:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Is it? rootology 07:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it is.  See new section below. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It only proves your bias. You go against this article when there are thousands of less notable ones, but you lead the charge against the one that put YOU on the front page. You talk about policy yet you went head on against it by removing the external link from the page. You edited the page after protecting it. You protected it in a dispute you were in. You deleted an image you should've just reverted. You only follow policy when it's a convenience, and then you use it to absurd levels. 71.112.141.236 06:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The external link was to their mainpage which had the attack article about me and that is why it was removed. I deleted the older PNG image after the newer one had been created twice, and then they edited the new PNG over top of the old one with a re-edit. I then deleted that since it was more than obvious that the old image was going to be used to continue to harass me. I protected the page because editors with only a few edits and other people closely involved with ED were here harassing. This website isn't some playground. I ask you once again, stick to the policy reasons for why this article is verifiable and stop attacking me.--MONGO 06:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why didn't you protect the image? 71.112.141.236 06:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What have MONGO's motivations got to do with anything? The article either is or is not based on information from reliable independent sources. Whatever catalyzed this particular AfD now doesn't really matter. The only question is whether we're following WP:V and WP:NOR. Other articles about non-notable websites will be deleted in time. This one's time happens to be this week, and it just doesn't matter what provoked that. I don't see anybody's good faith as being in question, because deleting one delete-worthy article while there exist other delete-worthy ones just doesn't begin to look like the actions of someone who's out to harm the project. If this deletion was in some way provoked by ED writing an attack article about MONGO, who cares? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the IP.  Editing something after you protect it is very amateur.  You should know better.  What you're supposed to do is have your buddies do the edits for you and then protect on their version.  Now I hope you don't make that mistake again.  Hardvice 06:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The old PNG can be recreated as changes to image deletions should allow that. Hardly congruent with accusations of admin abuse however. I hope you don't continue to upload images that are copywrite violations claiming them as self portraits. I don't seek "help" with situations in which I am dealing with overt trolling.--MONGO 06:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this reply was ment for someone else since it did not respond to my statement.  And to be clear I was talking about removing the link to the site, not the image link after protection.  Hardvice 07:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's established you should not have edited post locking. That is not a debateable point anymore. It was conflict of interest, abuse of admin privs, violation of protection policy--three for one. Just as there is no justification for 3rr violations--see Hipicrite and I today--admins get no free pass for breaking rules either. Whether they are mocked or not. rootology 07:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't violate 3RR...check the diffs and learn the policy. The external link was pointing to an attack page, so I removed it. How entertaining that I have asked, politely to discuss the reasons why the article is to be kept or not and to stop attacking me, yet both of you continue to do this. How many times do you have to be told this? I simply love how some here thing is was okay to continue to allow that website to attack anyone via their external link.--MONGO 07:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked before but you've never directly answered: show me precedent elsewhere on WP, or policy, that supported your removal of the link POST LOCKING and I'll be done with this point. rootology 07:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take this to AN/I and stop attacking me on this page.--MONGO 08:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already did, you wouldn't answer that direct question there either (twice asked, I believe). But I'm done with asking you for now. History and a future RfC will answer. rootology 08:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am tired of your threats...if you want to file an rfc, then do so. Your personal attacks have been noted.--MONGO 08:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair review may be difficult? 

message: Inserting one or two sentences about this, or even a paragraph, into the LiveJournal page and redirecting ED there sounds like a solution that can keep most of the original research and NPOV away.  And the keepers can't complain that we're excluding them. Crazyswordsman 02:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except it's more than LJ.  It has no valid merge target.  A stub would be entirely proper and meet all necessary policies at the moment until we can get this mess sorted out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nn unverified original research nonsense... delete. (→Netscott) 02:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I disagree. This is more notable than some of the other wikis. Moreover, this article is verifiable as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiable? Based on which independent reliable sources? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would add references but it has been fully protected, maybe a semi would be enough? Lapinmies 07:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add the new references to the talk page as a new section. I have a sandbox mockup here too made for trying to come up with a compromise, feel free to tweak it and report back on the main article take page sandbox section or your new one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_damatica/sandboxfork1 rootology 08:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made this.  This is a mergeable version I think. Crazyswordsman 11:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good one! That would be a merge into the LJ article? OK, then, questions for the most vocal deletionists: MONGO, Hipicrite, Netscott: what do you think of *each* option? Move en masse to parody right now, or merge to Livejournal, until such time as the article on ED can be found to have enough sources to warrant it's moving back to a full article of it's own on normal name space? rootology 14:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging: the only feasible solution 

message: As my concerns for a fair impartial review by an admin in my opinion based on what is certainly heading for basically Negative Concensus has spiralled as much as everything else to do with this...  It's simply not happening since everyone is absurdly heated. Again: this AfD should be suspended in general as it's become a four ring circus of bias and POV assaults by everyone. But:
:EDIT: Requesting that all four people I named at least in Good Faith read all four of my points, and I ask the other three to at least sign yay/nay. The other ten would be simply yay/agree votes. rootology 08:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sign agreement to this now. rootology 08:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah.  I'd support this.  Unfortunately, I know nothing of ED, but I could definitely help moderate. Crazyswordsman 11:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I sign agreement to this now. rootology 08:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Support as well  Karwynn (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We aren't going to appoint poeple to write the article, that is completely unwiki, and excepting anyone to "stay away" from editing the article aside from a community imposed ban to do is is also unwiki.--MONGO 08:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MONGO, would you support moving to parodies? rootology 14:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Another compromise I would support. Crazyswordsman 11:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. If/when the ED subject matter ever get more RS-worthy sources it could always get moved back to the main name space later. I'm up for this. rootology 14:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This sounds like a great compromise. Actually, any compromise which serves the true mission of WP to catalog the entirety of human knowledge and be a useful free encyclopedia is appealing to me. I would love to see everyone cool out on this article. It has been FAR too divisive. Compromise is good! --Bouquet 17:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two compromises I can live with and hopefully others 

message: 1. We hash out three impartial editors (and just them) to stub down the article in a sandbox page on ED article to strictly content that merits inclusion as a Web-related stub. The Alexa notability and the few incoming legitimate links make this worth while for inclusion in WP as that. I nominate Netscott, crazyswordwoman, and Badlydrawnjeff. I propose that if MONGO, myself, Badlydrawnjeff, and Hipicrite all agree in writing to this as the main people involved thus far in the endless back and forth, PLUS at least ten total people agree, then the AfD be suspended as is, and those three work it on a sandbox. Netscott is for removal, Jeff for retention, and swordwoman has been amazingly levelheaded thus far. If they agree to do the edits on the sandbox, if not, I'll renom people, or ask that they themselves nominate others. One pro delete, one for, and one who's been neutral. There's no other way out of this quagmire. Once the three of them have brought down the article to meet all standards amongst themselves, I propose that William M. Connolley be asked to handle unlocking and moving their version of the sandbox to the live page as he's been great and impartial to both sides. If within two weeks they can't give William a page that he agrees is appropriate to go on Wikipidia, it's unprotected, and people can AfD their heads off, but I will myself almost certainly abstain on that one. rootology 08:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sign agreement to this now. rootology 08:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah.  I'd support this.  Unfortunately, I know nothing of ED, but I could definitely help moderate. Crazyswordsman 11:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option One:

message: 2. Based on the ludicrous morass here, as second compromise I nominate that the AfD be suspended/terminated and the article left as-is for now and locked by William M. Connolley still. The AfD tags come down, the article is just locked. One week afterwards to give EVERYONE time to cool off, Netscott can put in the EXACT same AfD. Same wording the whole nine yards. However, the compromise here: I propose that if MONGO, myself, Badlydrawnjeff, and Hipicrite all agree in writing to this as the main people involved thus far in the endless back and forth, that we are NOT under any circumstances to post in the AfD main page on the "new" AfD discussion beyond saying Speedy Delete, Speedy Keep, Abstain, Keep, and so on. Our reasons are MORE than noted at this point on both sides, and all of us have turned this into a digital Vietnam. If all four of us agree in writing plus at least ten others, I put this forward as the second option. rootology 08:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sign agreement to this now. rootology 08:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Support as well  Karwynn (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option Two:

message: 3. If both meet full support (that's twenty eight agreements total--that should be good for concensus I'd think), as a matter of Good Faith I propose that number #1 is then automatically selected as the option in effect if the three editors and william agree. rootology 08:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If Support For Both:

message: 4. If we don't go for an attempt at compromise and push this mess of an AfD as-is, this a) going to a bigger circus of a deletion reversal, and will certainly reach RfC (probably a couple for the myriad points argued) and almost certainly ArbCom. Do we all want to waste WEEKS or MONTHS on this? rootology 08:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We aren't going to appoint poeple to write the article, that is completely unwiki, and excepting anyone to "stay away" from editing the article aside from a community imposed ban to do is is also unwiki.--MONGO 08:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MONGO, would you support moving to parodies? rootology 14:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Another compromise I would support. Crazyswordsman 11:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. If/when the ED subject matter ever get more RS-worthy sources it could always get moved back to the main name space later. I'm up for this. rootology 14:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This sounds like a great compromise. Actually, any compromise which serves the true mission of WP to catalog the entirety of human knowledge and be a useful free encyclopedia is appealing to me. I would love to see everyone cool out on this article. It has been FAR too divisive. Compromise is good! --Bouquet 17:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Otherwise...

message: I removed the following fomr the section at the head of the deletion debate.  It was becoming unedifying.  I have also toned down Netscott's wording, which might have been taken as inflammatory by the EDers. Just zis Guy you know? 09:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also of note in terms of vanity is the fact that this article was re-created (after its initial deletion) by User:SchmuckyTheCat. Who also created the redirect from the originally deleted article's spelling. (→Netscott) 04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Just as there are ED trolls whose votes should not be counted for vanity reasons, many of the deletionists have used innappropriate logic and personal attacks in this debate.  Some of their reasoning can be seen as a violation of WP:NPOV, just as much as the article is.  These cancel each other out, methinks. Crazyswordsman 02:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the ED editors fully are regard their points here as true.  Trolling is done to provoke reaction and is not what the person regard as true.  ED editors' trolling occurs mostly in ED articles.  Hardvice 02:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What the heck does that have to do with the reasons for keeping or deleting this article? I see no evidence that that IP was used there, and who cares? It has nothing to do with this discussion.--MONGO 07:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: . But I notice the whole f***ing thing has been moved back in.  Ah well. Just zis Guy you know? 12:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments from head of deletion debate 

message: Ok, here are the sources that have been put forward to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS.  If we decide to stub this thing, we'll need to be very clear exactly which sources we're using, and what they actually say.  Maybe this list already exists, but I haven't seen it yet.
*"Account Hijackings Force LiveJournal Changes" from The Washington Post
*:The article itself links to ED somewhat misleadingly (seems to imply that ED is Bantown's own website), and someone mentions it directly in an anonymous message board post below the article.  No verifiable content.
*"Another Alternative Wikipedia - Encyclopedia damatica" from Newsvine
*:This is a good ED review, but it's just some guy blogging.  I'm sorry, not "some guy", but "Shaolintiger: L33t h4x0r, food lover and SCUBA diver."  This source does provide content, but isn't from a reasonable source, in my estimation.
*"What's the word?  TL; DR acronym. too long; didn't read" from The Guardian
*:Here, The Guardian mentions ED quite directly, and then proceeds to tell us nothing about it that translates into verifiable content.
* Mention  in Wikizine
*:I really don't see how Wikizine counts as a reliable published source, but they do provide us with precisely one, soundbyte sized, nugget of goodness.
*"PureVolume meets Merriam-Webster" from PureVolume's community blog.
*:Well, it's a blog, repeating the soundbyte from Wikizine and adding a little more content.  Too bad it's a blog, huh?
Did I miss any? -GTBacchus(talk) 10:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just added two more to the list above. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, the article has some serious flaws as far as meeting our policies for inclusion.--MONGO 10:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MONGO, what do you think of moving it to a subpage of Wikipedia:Parodies? -GTBacchus(talk) 10:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think any support I have for such a move will be deemed by the hard core supporters of the article as admin abuse. But, the move sounds like an excellent idea, that is, if the decision is decided to keep the article at all. We don't have an article on Wikipedia Review or Hive mind for many of the same reasons we shouldn't have this one.--MONGO 10:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, would it be more effective if you come out against the move, thus driving the masses towards it by some law of mangetic repulsion?  That would be ironic, or something, because the suggestion to move the article there came directly from Encyclopedia damatica, from a hard core supporer of the article. -GTBacchus(talk) 11:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Encyclopedia damatica is leaps and bounds more notable than Wikipedia Review or Hive Mind. The only thing they have in common is criticism of Wikipedia, and ED only has about 50-100 pages on that. 71.112.141.236 12:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So, Washington Post and Guardian mention it. That basically kills the non-notability argument. And non-verifiability argument was nonsensical from the start since websites verify themselves (rather conveniently). I just don't see what the debate is about.  Grue  10:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of those stand up to WP:RS and you should know that. All they do is mention it, and the Washington Post doesn't even do that on the linked page.--MONGO 10:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) "Basically kills the non-notability argument"? No it doesn't. Compare the sources listed here with the sourcing at WikiTruth, where they link to articles that were actually written about the website, with details that we can use in the article. These sources just barely kind of do that. In order to help you understand what this debate is about, please see the discussion between myself and SJK in the AfD. I think it's made pretty clear there what's at stake in this discussion. I hope that helps, and I urge you to consider that saying "I don't see what the debate is about" isn't actually the most effective way to end it, especially when compared with seeing fully what the debate is about and reaching an understanding with other participants. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This article isn't about a "criticism" site but a non-notable, unverifiable, original sourced parody site that's all about attacking people. I don't really understand why people want to compare this site to other genuine sites of Wikipedia criticism. (→Netscott) 10:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe because people keep saying it's "non-notable" and 'unverifiable" while blocking themselves from the facts?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which particular facts are you referring to here? -GTBacchus(talk) 11:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources, the actual history of the "attack," etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the crap sources, that are listed right here?  As for the history of the "attack" maybe there's some details I don't know (maybe a lot), but I've thought for months that this article was a glaring violation of WP:NOR, and that has nothing to do with any recent "attack". -GTBacchus(talk) 11:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Crap sources."  Riiight. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, did that come across badly?  I just meant to abbreviate the problems I was trying to highlight above - namely that there's not a single reliable source actually proving providing any information that verifies the contents of the article.  I mean, is there? -GTBacchus(talk) 12:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Is an admin Zanium editing the article while protected? What is the reasoning behind this policy violation? Further evidence this whole thing needs to be thrown out as a biased unfair, completely impossible to be impartial admin vote. Sorry. This is THREE TIMES this protected article has been inappropriately edited in direct violation of policy. rootology 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why?? 

message: Please review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rootology&redirect=no#Feel_free_to_edit_the_article.2C
What is the meaning of this? rootology 16:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Admin "right" to edit?

message: Yes, polls are evil and I know, but this is just to see if the communuty supports an alternative to keep or delete. Crazyswordsman 22:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  comment - As stated in the article, ED is about much more than Livejournal, even if it is a central point to it.  There's more that's worth mentioning.  YOu'd also have to merge it into meme, at the very least
====rootology solution: Let a neutral party rewrite the article====
====GTBacchus solution: Move to Wikipedia:Parodies====
====Combination of any of the above====
#A mix of my solution and GTB's solution would be perfect. Crazyswordsman 22:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll 

message: ====Crazyswordsman solution: Merge a stub about it into LiveJournal====
::: comment - As stated in the article, ED is about much more than Livejournal, even if it is a central point to it.  There's more that's worth mentioning.  YOu'd also have to merge it into meme, at the very least
====rootology solution: Let a neutral party rewrite the article====
====GTBacchus solution: Move to Wikipedia:Parodies====
====Combination of any of the above====
#A mix of my solution and GTB's solution would be perfect. Crazyswordsman 22:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Options

message: #A mix of my solution and GTB's solution would be perfect. Crazyswordsman 22:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Combination of any of the above

message: #This poll assumes that the article isn't worth having.  That's wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose any compromise (please explain why)

message: If the article gets AfD'd (and if swordman is an admin, I recommend SHE handle the closing), it won't be automatically locked like some other deleteds are, will it? As any other normal article it still retains the ability to be in good faith recreated later if better sourcing arises? rootology 23:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given this article's history of deletion and recreation, salting it would make perfect sense if indeed it were to be deleted. (→Netscott) 23:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was only deleted once? rootology 23:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and reviewing the AfD discussion one can see that its recreation appears to have been a bit underhandedly done. If deleted then salt this spelling and all of the other spellings too. (→Netscott) 23:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, official last one and I'm out: whats the official "right way" to request unlocking of protection on an AfD'd article to bring it back later (assuming new sources pop up someday)? Just so I know/my own edification. I've learned a frightening amount of policy in the last 48 hours except this. I am seriously done otherwise, good luck to both sides, etc., have a nice weekend everyone... rootology 23:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RFPP? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey!  I'm not a woman!  Nor am I an admin.  If I was, I'd probably close it as no consensus since that's what it is anyway.  I'd also leave a note on the talk page asking the editors who really want to see this go and those who want it to stay to hammer out a compromise and report back to me. Crazyswordsman 00:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah.  And due to my participation in this I wouldn't close it anyway.  That would have conflict of interest problems. Crazyswordsman 00:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nomination for deletion?  Or the first deletion? Hardvice 23:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Root's self-imposed hiatus from the ED articles was apparently very short-lived. To the actual point, I would prefer that an admin who has not participated in the dialogue closes the case. The goal here is not to create a 'wedge' issue and open the door to more trolling by ED complainants seeking to establish notability using personal attacks - it's to resolve the issue so that the encyclopedia is improved. THAT is the goal here. The goal is not the pursuit of vanity, and certainly not personal attacks against WP editors. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, just realized I missed a couple things I was thinking about still. Really OUT of this whole AfD debate itself. Have a nice weekend Ryan!rootology 23:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You too! See you at the beach? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More likely at a city wide food festival here, but yeah. Beach = better for waistline than either food or a wiki weekend. rootology 01:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last question (I swear) 

message: Placed in a new heading to avoid possible splitting off from the above topic's heading.
:::You're absolutely right about all this source stuff, and there is no good faith reason to exclude any of the ones seen here.  Besides, ED works on its own as inclusion in an article about itself.  It's right in either WP:RS or WP:V I believe.  The delete votes, at least the good faith ones, are basically saying "this article needs cleanup".  Well, deletion is not the way to go.  There is no problem with sources.  Worst of all, no one can even include the sources because it's locked.  And there will be minimal replies to this, because MONGO and Hipocrite and Netscott tend not to reply to headings where they know they're wrong.  Karwynn (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You go around claiming that myself and others that are in disagreement with you are intentionally avoiding certain issues, which is completely inaccurate. Time to argue about the article and not the opposition to your perspective.--MONGO 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to above heading 

message: See all this?  This should've been going on in the article's talk page before it was put up for deletion.  "Delete first, ask questions later" is highly unwiki.  Karwynn (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Administrative *AND* bias by his friends since MONGO got his feelings hurt. To be honest I'm overall EXTREMELY AND UTTERLY disgusted by every side in this. What should be included in WP should have NO BEARING ON IT'S CONTENT NATURE OR ANYTHING EMOTIONAL. Ever. Period. It should be based on fact, logic and truth, like a real encyclopedia. rootology 15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay...this is the last time I am going to tell you to stop tossing my name around here. I am also sick and tired of your personal attacks. What part of that do you not understand? I am not telling you again.--MONGO 17:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, I am seriously done with all of this as well and will not be contributing anymore to this AfD--I stand behind my five point analysis above and think I've proven the merit of that reference and notability. What do you think of the five points, if I can ask? rootology 17:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a trained researcher, the Guardian is a decent source, "but" what they have to say about ED doesn't say anything at all. It is a reliable source based on the ability to demonstrate that the Guardian is big and well known, but they don't tell us anything about ED...what is it that they tell us that is informative? So we say that in the Guardian they use one sentence to tell us nothing except that ED has a picture of Bush with some markings on his forehead...how does that help us with the article as far as establishing notability? They got a brief sentence somewhere...surely there are thousands of websites that have been mentioned at one time or another by some large entity that everyone has heard of...but that doesn't help us establish notablity, especially when based on one sentence. ED's 15 minutes of fame lasted 3 seconds in this circumstance.--MONGO 17:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DIscussion of sources 

message: Although I remain opposed for now purely on notability grounds, rootology made an interesting point about Wikis in general: :
:Speedy Keep ... Also, even if nearly every part of this article were legitimately removed, it is still just as notable as all these similar articles (just a small sample of similar articles on "niche market" wiki projects):
::The_Psychology_Wiki, Jurispedia, Mac_Guide, Open_Source_Reiki, OpenFacts, OrthodoxWiki, PSConclave, PeanutButterWiki, Personal_Telco, ProductWiki, Quicksilver_wiki, Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy_Wiki, Star_Trek_Gaming_Universe, State_Wiki, and Symbolwiki.
:Definite keep per all of this. rootology 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...in the meantime, maybe we've just been handed a working list of wiki-related articles for PROD tags. --A. B. 18:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone should make a "Wiki Wiki," a Wiki for Wikis, where all this can go. Crazyswordsman 02:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Posted. Good idea, I started the discussion. rootology 02:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Wiki of Wikis... like WikiIndex? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: AboutUs.org is a new Wiki of websites that already has descriptions of most of these Wikis, almost all in need of expansion. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good for this site too, as the "father" of the whole movement... to have these wiki articles. If not they all have to deleted. Either that or WEB needs to change. rootology 03:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a promotional tool for MediaWiki software, or for the Wiki "movement"... it's really just an attempt to write a high quality encyclopedia, and we understand high quality to mean certain things in terms of how we source our information.  Wikipedia is not a web directory, nor should it be.  I agree that any article on a website failing to meet WP:WEB should be deleted, or that guideline should be updated to reflect that some other standard is what's actually in effect. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tangential comment re other Wikis' notability, rootology comments 

message: (copied from Wikipedia_talk:Snowball clause by —Nate Scheffey)
I understand deleting encyclopedia damatica, because it is a small subculture of an already small subculture, but why was the discussion page for the deletion of the ED entry also deleted? What have you got to hide?
If the discussion page is still there, please tell me how to find it.
Follow-up question: Why is the wiki article on wikifur still up? It's also a small subculture of an already small subculture.
(Edit: When I say ED was deleted, I merely mean the page on ED. I apologize if I didn't make that clear.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starblade (talk • contribs) 
:It was deleted because administrators like to censor things that they don't agree with. I would not be surprised if I was blocked for "disruption" and reverted for making this edit.--Mr. Bater 00:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like it's based on not knowing much about Wikipedia. Mr. Bater.  It was deleted because it was all unverifiable original research.  Please familiarize yourself with some Wikipedia policies before throwing accusations of bias around, thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of us aren't worried about that, GrandMasterGalvatron.  We'd rather be mocked by ED for sticking to our policies like WP:V and WP:NOR than throw those polices away, and give up on being a reliable encyclopedia.  Some of us think it looks pretty good to insist on some kind of standards, and that what makes us look bad is allowing self-aggrandizement by undocumented websites to pass for "encyclopedic". -GTBacchus(talk) 19:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note also that it is in fact standard practice to delete discussion pages of articles. Many admins do it is a matter of course when they have deleted an article. JoshuaZ 03:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that or what JoshuaZ said above, that it's just routine that talk pages of deleted articles are usually also deleted. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The deletion of ED. 

message: Could someone please explain why the word "Dramatica" was search-and-replaced with "damatica" on this page? —Ashley Y 03:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think per the ArbCom decision re: MONGO links to ED are to be removed/blocked. From this I gather that rather than spend the time hunting and pecking specific links to ED a simpler shotgun approach was employed. A rather sensible solution I'd say. (→Netscott) 04:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand the decision correctly, as a special exception to the mission of Wikipedia to create an encyclopaedia, an article on ED will never be allowed no matter how noteworthy and encyclopaedic the topic might become in the future. Is that correct? —Ashley Y 10:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Incorrect. If ED does manage to satisfy WP:WEB we will consider having an article about it. Not before. JoshuaZ 16:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like "Wikipedia is not censored" became a joke.  Grue  18:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't for the protection of minors... -GTBacchus(talk) 09:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bizarre censorship 

message: Here, Encyclopedia Dramatica is mentioned in a column in a news source twice, and it's enough to verify that ED contains attack pages. Just in case more reliable sources start to come into existence - here's one for the next deletion review. Someone should create a test page, saying what it's possible to say about Encyclopedia Dramatica without straying into original research. You could rely on self-published sources, the trivial mentions of it in reliable sources, and that's it. Still doesn't add up to notability at the moment, but maybe it will in the future.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 10:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New reliable source mentioning Encyclopedia Dramatica 

message: I am not a professional.  I am only a college student that used to use Wikipedia for general information to help me with my studies.  However, a friend of mine warned me that the administrators of Wikipedia are EXTREMELY biased and directed me to this page.
This site is not for discussing morals or personal grudges against other site.  This site is made to give free information to any internet user.
What I'm trying to say is, it is not your choice to censor information that you don't like.  It is not an option to censor the information you don't like.
I understand that "Encyclopedia Dramatica" has caused conflict on Wikipedia before.  I visited the site, and it is definitely not humor for the faint of heart.  That does NOT mean it should be discriminated against.
If Wikipedia wants this problem solved once and for all, open the page only to be edited by admins for two weeks or so, and then lock the page permanently.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.166.101.192 (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbiased Information