Talk:YTMND/Archive 2

message: I think that a lot of people who have never seen a ytmnd might not have a clue what 'zooming' text is. I mean maybe it's a proper term, but I've certainly never heard it before. I don't want to change it because my computer tends to mess things up when I edit here. -Nick Kostalas
I'm not sure if the information about OMFG fads should be in the main ytmnd wiki, it would be better suited under the list of ytmnd fads wiki. I have added it there. Dr. Ke 07:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'zooming' text 

message: I suggest we remove the whole section about PTKFGS, it's already covered in List of YTMND Fads. Fyrestorm 06:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an importance tag (most of it is on PTKFGS, anyway). -Whomp 22:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the PTKFGS fad is all that important compared to other ones. I'm thinking of deleting the PTKFGS content leaving only the introduction paragraph about YTMND fads in general. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 01:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Just type in ytmnd.com/wiki and it'll get you to the same place. -Mysekurity [m!] 03:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fads and memes 

message: Edited "YTMND Fads" entry on the Mystery Song to correct the acknowledged "Feindflug" answer and link the site in question. Of course, it'll probably get deleted in any case...
...speak of the devil... --68.147.52.84 00:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystery Song 

message: This article cites an event which occurred on Feb. 29 of this year. There was no Feb. 29 this year. The Disco King 17:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the event mention is true; I wish I knew the real date, though. -Whomp 22:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  February 29 

message: Think this is worth mentioning?  On an article as tulmultuous as this one I like to bring a new idea up on the talk page before adding it. Crazyswordsman 01:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Scientology C&D Letter 

message: The acronyms stands for "You're The Man Now Dog!" [sic], not "You're The Man Now, Dog!". --84.249.252.211 13:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe grammar would demand the comma.  --Lanik 19:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The phrase in the movie is "you're the man now, dog!" The writing on the website is "YOURE THE MAN NOW DOG.COM [sic]." —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 10:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: just a minor grammatical edit needs to be done in the history section, regarding the ebaum's information.  "without crediting neither SpliceVW nor YTMND" should be either "without crediting either SpliceVW or YTMND" or "credited neither SpliceVW nor YTMND", I believe.  I'd do it myself if it wasn't prevented   --Lanik 19:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Monty, wrong place. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 05:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wrong? Monty2 06:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I'm correct, your statement of "NN, D" means you want to delete the article. However, this is not the appropriate forum for proposing deletion. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 15:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Grammar correction 

message: Should info be added regarding source info on the dustindiamond.com case? It's all here: www.dustindiamond.com/case/
Not sure if it's appropriate, so I'm not adding it myself at the current time. Xolina 18:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We cover it enough as it is, seeing as it has very little relevence to YTMND. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 06:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dustindiamond.com

message: I don't know if this is talk page appropriate, but the "shoes on lawsuits" page was mine. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • lol, internet) 02:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hooray for me! 

message: An anon keeps reverting to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YTMND&oldid=60419060#Conflicts_with_Live_Jasmin this, while I think http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YTMND&oldid=60450643#Conflicts_with_LiveJasmin this version is better. Anyone? —Whomp <span
 style="font-weight: bold; font-family: Calibri;"><font
 size="-2">[T] [C]</font></span> 03:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which is better? 

message: The abbreviation NEDM keeps appearing (and being removed) from the List of Internet slang phrases article. It seems to be an abbreviation that originated from and is mostly used on YTMND, so I think that if this abbreviation is somehow important to the users of this site that it might suit better to mention it in this article instead. /Jiiimbooh 14:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NEDM is a fad, so it's best suited for a fad list. However, we haven't really decided if we're going to include a fad list or not. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 17:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NEDM

message: What the hell is up with this page?  I came here to find out just exactly what the whole YTMND thing was about (which is, really, pretty vague) and I come to the discussion page and there are SCREAMING BANNERS!!!!!!!! galore on top.  So many that I just didn't even look at them.
Please rethink the idea of having so many alert banners like that.  Speaking just for myself, people who are just looking for information about a topic do not understand and do not care about, or want to be visually assaulted, by those things.  At this writing, there are five boxes with a total of seven alerts.
: Unfortunately they're standard on Wikipedia articles. Though I remember reading somewhere on Wikipedia a proposal for metapages for articles where these boxes would go. I just don't remember where that was. —this is messedrocker (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page banners

message: YTMND currently won't load for me at all. Has the entire site been taken down for some reason? Or is my comp just being weird?--70.35.210.140 02:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. Opera's Touch the Wire widget reports so. Pacific Coast Highway • blah 03:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  YTMND is down for me, too. It's more likely due to an attack or something with the server — Max hasn't made any suggestion towards closing down YTMND that I know of. —this is messedrocker (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can I get my upvote fix now? :pPacific Coast Highway • blah 03:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess we pushed the servers to the limit. (stops with the fad puns) Pacific Coast Highway • blah 03:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe if we put a shoe on it... Pacific Coast Highway (blah • lol, internet) 03:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I always hated the Zidane fad. I'm glad everyone sees the error of their ways. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • lol, internet) 03:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually my YTMND was ON the zidane fad, about how it's ruining the top 15 and how someone does something about it. I'd say more, but I don't want anyone stealing the idea, I've got a potential top 15 finished and just waiting to be uploaded. Mewchu11 03:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YTMND down? 

message: It may be too early and not enough coffee on my part but I have no idea what thought this is trying to convey.  
:"In 2004, Goldberg wrote a press release after winning a lawsuit filed by Dustin Diamond for the "fan page" at the aforementioned dustindiamond.com. He mentioned yourethemannowdog.com, as well as a new website, YTMND, that would be ready by April 10. The website opened that day after rushing through the coding and design process. The site caught on in popularity and became an Internet phenomenon when major weblogs began linking to the Picard Song YTMND.[1]"
Goldberg wrote a press release after winning a lawsuit (what grounds, Is Mr Goldberg a lawyer? what was the cause of the lawsuit, why dustin diamond, and why was there a fan page at the aforementioned dustindiamond.com
I just cannot make sense of this.72.84.35.146 11:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I must not have been comprehensive enough. I will get to that soon enough. —this is messedrocker (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing passage to me 

message: this page needs a list of ytmnd fads —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.146.15 (talk • contribs) 
*No, it doesn't. Danny Lilithborne 22:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It strikes me that the best solution here is to describe what constitutes a fad, to give a background, and then link to the YTMND wiki, where the list of fads can be maintained without problems.  Including any fads here is always going to be problematic, not least because we don't have an obvious reliable source for the significance of any particular fad. Just zis Guy you know? 15:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of YTMND fads

message: In addition to the typical no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view policies, I'd like to establish a minimal criteria for notability in including information about conflicts YTMND has had with others:
* Legal threats were somehow involved
* Information about the conflict has spread to other parts of the Internet
The eBaum and the Scientology controversies both satisfy the criteria: eBaum's World was attacked in unison by other communities including YTMND, and Neil Bauman sent a legal threat (albeit a very unprofessional and hillarious one, especially when read dramatically by Boomaga). The Scientology controversy occured as retribution for a cease-and-desist sent by The Church of Scientology, and a resulting slideshow, The Un-Funny Truth About Scientology, became a very popular website. Any other suggestions for inclusion guidelines? —this is messedrocker (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm well aware, and I do agree, that we should follow all applicable policies and guidelines. I was merely suggesting a notability guideline for this specific situation. While we should not have extensive coverage of the YTMND itself, we could note that such a page exists and it's caused Googlebombs &al. —this is messedrocker (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for including conflicts 

message: I don't think that there is any original research here; it seems more of a definition of fads in general.  If there are no rebuttals, I shall remove it.  If it really irks someone, though, it should be rewritten.  Fads are an integral part of YTMND and to dismiss their discussion as original research is silly.  --StvnLunsford 00:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a controversey that's going to grow.  We should try to work out a reasonable compromise.  However, I should say that some of the media that mentions YTMND does make note of this, and it is possible to cite the same source more than once. Sir Crazyswordsman 14:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fads are indeed a part of YTMND.  We should say so.  The fads themselves, though, have no real place here.  There are only two ways of handling fads: allowing everyone to insert their favorite fad (which will be strongly resisted, per the AfD for the list of fads) or includingonly those where there evidence from reliable secondary sources to state that this is a fad which is of lasting significance to the community.  I can't think of another option.  Just zis Guy you know? 20:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Just so you know, Answers.com's articles are actually Wikipedia articles, so those can't be cited. Additionally, the other things (like dictionary definitions and all that) are also copied from other sources. I see Answers.com as more of an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias should be cited as references as little as possible. —this is messedrocker (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Does going to the website and seeing within 2 seconds that fads exist constitute OR? How obvious does something have to be before it goes from OR to not needing to be sourced (I like the 'max is male' example used earlier)?  Roffler 21:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think both the above are right: the existence of fads is blindingly obvious, the identity and description of individual fads is a job for the YTMND wiki, which we link, because any judgment about them (most especialyl which ones are considered significant within the history of YTMND) is subjective.  So: endorse status quo.  Just zis Guy you know? 22:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think that this is a reasonable conclusion for us to come to, and that therefore the issue is resolved.StvnLunsford 04:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research and Fads

message: what do they have against us? one of our members uses YTMND!!! this is unjust. i suggest a netwide boycott of YTMND.com Zazaban 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YTMND raided runevillage.com! 

message: I've heard that YTMND's next target is the planeshift forums at http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php does this have any basis in fact? Zazaban 23:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is hardly the place to be discussing YTMND's "Forum Raid" plans. If you want to know who they want to conduct their little war against, why don't you go check their forums. It has no encyclopedic basis though. Canadian-Bacon 00:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YTMND to raid planeshift forums? 

message: If this is ever going to become a featured article, we should mention particularly famous YTMNDs — the kind listed on the ytmnd.com/list/?sort=hall_of_fame YTMND Hall of Fame and mentioned by the press. How exactly will we get about doing this? Is there any other general notability criteria we should consider? Is this a good idea at all? —this is messedrocker (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we should link to the YTMND wiki, because as soon as we start mentioning any YTMNDs we are into subjective judgments and we are right back to the cruft-o-rama which was the deleted List of YTMND fads. Just zis Guy you know? 08:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that we do need to find a way of mentioning particularly famous YTMNDs but the listcruft that happened before was not the way to do it. Even if we did pull 5 or so permanent entries out of the ytmnd.com/list/?sort=hall_of_fame YTMND Hall of Fame (The most viewed by chance? Since that doesn't change frequently) I have a feeling they would be mercilessly[sp] swapped around and added to by the YTMND community...so I'm drawing a blank. Canadian-Bacon  (contribs) 15:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I count 35 YTMNDs in the Hall of Fame at present, I think it would be unreasonable to list all of them. I think we'd need to cut it down much further then that. I feel that for notability, and verifiablity sake, we should leave it at media cited YTMNDs. Canadian-Bacon  (contribs) 03:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above statement. We don't need people to see an invatation to spam sites all over the page. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 04:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My statement was more restrictive to the one prior to mine. I said it would be unreasonable to list 35+ sites, the article has no space for that...please clarify. Canadian-Bacon  (contribs) 04:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant mentioning media cited YTMND's. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 04:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh ok, well to clarify the entire discussion basically has press cited YTMNDs in the clear, so it wasn't just me there. But I personally feel that if a major, verifiable new source makes mention of something then it's mentionable on the page, just my opinion. Canadian-Bacon  (contribs) 04:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Better still, link to the YTMND wiki and let the YTMNDers work it out.  We are not here as a YTMND mirror or promotion tool. Just zis Guy you know? 21:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 22:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I know we're not here as a mirror or promotion tool. I was just simply curious about encyclopedic coverage of kind of YTMNDs that have received quite the recognition. While we can't cover every single YTMND, we could at least mention that there are certain ones that are quite popular — the kind the media want to cover. —this is messedrocker (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if we make 2 necessary requirements to a)be media cited, b)be Hall of Fame, saying that both must be met before a YTMND can be listed, we have a VERY short list that couldn't become bloated, I think it's a safe bet, and would be notable and verifiable which are the keys in this situation. Canadian-Bacon  (contribs) 01:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one I could think of that is mention worthy is picard.ytmnd.com Picard Song due to its extreme importance to YTMND, and it's already mentioned (but someone removed the link to it)  Perhaps timetravler.ytmnd.com Safety Not Guaranteed as well, since not only has it become a major internet meme, it was cited in a magazine (although the citation should be left in the media section). Sir Crazyswordsman 02:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see those two meet both the propositions in here, so I'd have no issue with that, keeping the list limited to those two wouldn't necessarily be a bad things either.(Note: Can we try and dig up the citations first) Canadian-Bacon  (contribs) 02:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Max keeps an archive of media sightings in the "about" section. Sir Crazyswordsman 15:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if anyone is interested in a popular site that does NOT violate copyright (JzG seems to accuse YTMND of copyvio, which is ironic because he does not make that accusation against EBaum's World), AND is important to YTMND's history, baumanletters.ytmnd.com The Bauman Emails: A Dramatic Reading can be added as well. Sir Crazyswordsman 15:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As for your remarks about eBaum's World, *swish!* Though, doesn't eBaum's World technically claim copyright for the c&d they wrote? —this is messedrocker (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it. :p Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You can't copyright a C&D letter. :) Sir Crazyswordsman 13:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *A few were shown on MSNBC, but weren't officially credited. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • Snakes on a Plane) 04:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: **The ones shown on MSNBC were from SomethingAwful, not YTMND. LadyRogue 13:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning very popular YTMNDs 

message: Let's get a list here: which YTMNDs are we going to feature first? —this is messedrocker (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *A few were shown on MSNBC, but weren't officially credited. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • Snakes on a Plane) 04:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: **The ones shown on MSNBC were from SomethingAwful, not YTMND. LadyRogue 13:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What will be featured first?

message: I'm warning you now.  Don't do it.  Lee Kaplan isn't even notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.  I WILL revert any additions related to Lee Kaplan on site. Sir Crazyswordsman 02:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Sir Crazyswordsman on this one. In fact if you look at Lee Kaplan's article, it was only made AFTER YTMND mentioned him, maybe we should do something about that. Canadian-Bacon  (contribs) 01:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to mark it for deleltion, but I need to see if that's a consensus, or just my opinion.  Thoughts?  StvnLunsford 13:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He seems to be notable, but if you think the article should be deleted, follow the process at WP:AFD. —this is messedrocker (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Is he really?  There obviously isn't much interest in him beyond the YTMND crowd; surely one of the YTMNDers put it up when he or she couldn't find any info here on him.  I don't know, though.  What makes a person article worthy? StvnLunsford 20:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised someone didn't nominated it for deletion yet.  I won't but I'll vote delete if it comes up. Sir Crazyswordsman 22:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've marked it up for deletion, so have at it, ladies and gents. StvnLunsford 02:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning the Lee Kaplan fiasco 

message: I believe that with not much further work, this article could be nominated for Feature Article. Does anyone have any ideas on how to improve it to a standard that it's nomination would go well. Canadian-Bacon  (contribs) 01:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We definitely need more comprehension — from what I can tell on the talk page, we're working on that. Better sources for the article couldn't hurt, too. —this is messedrocker (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh yes, and we definitely need a longer lead. Since I wrote much of the article, if I were to write the lead, it'd be repetitive. Someone that writes differently than I should expand the lead based on the contents of the article. —this is messedrocker (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wish I were useful for writing leads but I'm not, it would just be a jumble of statistics. The article seems like it could use more prose as well, it just seems short to me. Canadian-Bacon  (contribs) 06:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably just a nitpick, and probably irrelevant, but I think YTMND deletes sites used as inside jokes.  I saw that there's a note about the term, but I don't know if we need to get into that level of detail if there's a lot more to be done here.StvnLunsford 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work on this Article for FA

message: Something comes up when I search for it saying "how to get a site deleted", apparently on the frontpage, and then when I try to enter the page cannot be displayed. Has YTMND been taken down?
:This is not the appropriate place to discuss this.  Use this talk page to discuss the article and its content, not the site itself. Lumaga 15:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone know what happened to YTMND? 

message: Knock yourself out. Sir Crazyswordsman 16:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, who's gonna be the first to bite?  I'm almost afraid to; if we put one up, I'm almost positive we'll be flooded with dozens more, and they probably won't be cited in reliable sources.  Maybe we should leave this to the YTMND wiki.StvnLunsford 02:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tempted to, but what should the section be named. Also I'm tempted to leave an editing note at the top of the section to dissuade people from adding to the list without consulting the talk page.Canadian-Bacon  (contribs) 05:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure.  "Noteworthy YTMNDs"?  "Popular YTMNDs"?  "YTMND in the News"?  StvnLunsford 05:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: After some deduction based on a list of media sightings, the five YTMNDs that should be in the Notable Creations section are Tom Cruise Kills Oprah, MySpace Suicide, lol internet, and Blue Ball Machine. My decision is based on the fact that those YTMNDs have been mentioned in the media and have not been mentioned elsewhere in the article. Additionally, we should make a reference to a YTMND that compared the Six Flags mascot to Ray Edgar Killen, since it was notable for, I think, the only YTMND taken down due to legal threats. If you think others are worthy of the list, feel free to add it to the article, or propose them here. —this is messedrocker (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom Cruise kills Oprah is the only one of those I can agree with as it has been mentioned in multiple reliable secondary sources and has become a major phenomenon not just on the internet, but in magazines.  BBF is only notable as the most viewed site, and is hardly encyclopedic.  Lol Internet is not notable anymore than Conan, Stapler, or What is Love (ie not encyclopedic).  MySpace is a long dead fad, so it's even less encyclopedic.  Sir Crazyswordsman 03:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's a much better idea!  Leave it to YTMND wiki to document the YTMNDs.  Seriously, this is a perfectly decent article and stands in no pressing need of significant further content. Just zis Guy you know? 14:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's verifiable in multiple reliable secondary sources, and it can be explained from the WP:NPOV, as is the case with a SELECT FEW (keywords emphasized) sites, they are encyclopedic. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article failed GA beacues we don't have enough links to sites.  There seems to be a consensus that there should be some links Sir Crazyswordsman 18:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. We should link to the popular ones, and write about the really popular ones. —this is messedrocker (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The YTMND Wiki has a list of all sites that have appeared in [[WP:RS|Reliable sources]] 

message: Hi all,
This article was not promoted to good article because:
* The Community section is a one sentence rehash of information that was mostly written in the History section. Consider deleting it.
* The Fads and memes section is a one sentence section. Consider deleting or expanding it. Possibly to include mention of some of the more popular fads.
The article would also benefit more links to YTMND's as in many cases the best way to develop an understanding of YTMND's is to see them yourself.
Cedars 01:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for not promoting