Jump to content

Talk:YTMND/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

'zooming' text

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)

Stukas/Trolling

Two users by the names of Stukas/Refault have been vandalizing both wikipedia/ytmnd wikis, linking sites that are not relevant to any of YTMND's history. They are clearly seeking attention and page views. If you see any sites linking to "supcat", user name Stukas or Refault, please revert this vandalism. I just recently removed the "Admin Abuse" article they wrote on the front page. Max himself has checked the users themselves and deleted them due to abuse.

Once again I kindly ask to revert vandalism, and if mysekurity is reading this, please take appropriate action. Graci. Fyrestorm 17:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, your response would appear to coincide with that section as it would appear, and I feel that the section should remain unless you can prove that it is false, as the subject of admin abuse for a website based on user contributions is definitely relevant and absolutely belongs in the wikipedia. Wiki is supposed to be a place of neutrality, and your post here actually perfectly confirms that section's presence in the wiki. I am going to revert it unless you can cite your grievances. Thanks Dr. Ke 17:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Please check YTMND Wiki history on user Refault. He has posted sites that have no relevance to YTMND History (ex: OMFG Fad, supcat, Stukas being a "famous user"). I have emailed mysekurity on this issue, and I know this will be dealt with promptly. Fyrestorm 17:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I have been to YTMND Wiki, and I did check the history in question. Refault did post that Admin Abuse section, however, all what you are telling me would seem to imply that Refault himself is the "troll" mentioned, not that the section itself is entirely false and should be removed. I would rather discuss making changes to the section itself rather than eradicating it, as the subject of Admin Abuse is definitely a relevant one for a site that thrives off of user contributions. I would appreciate not having an edit war at this time. Thanks Dr. Ke 17:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I've also noticed you reverting back edits made by them on this history page, and that a User:talk hyperlink "Stukas" links to your user page. Fyrestorm 17:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I have readded the section in question with a disputed template added on, hopefully we can discuss this later, as I have to go at the moment. Thanks Dr. Ke 17:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I also ask anyone who reads this to check Refault's editing history on the YTMND Wiki article. That is proof enough to remove this section. Fyrestorm 18:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have some time now. Regardless of the username of the "internet troll" in question, or whether or not Refault is the "troll", does that really affect the validity of this article? I don't see how refault's identity makes this section worthless? Furthermore, as you are a YTMND admin yourself(and I assume the one who deleted said account), you must admit you have some bias towards getting this section deleted? I am simply wondering why you think this article should be deleted? It is clearly factual or at least very close to factual(i.e. salvageable by wikipedia standards) and it is definitely relevant to the article(YTMND being a site based on user contributions). Do you feel it should be deleted due to the supposed identity of the posters? I am going to leave a message on your user page(although I don't know how often you check it) with a few other questions. Regards Dr. Ke 20:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The section itself should be deleted entirely. I do not have priveledges on YTMND to delete users. Max himself is the only user with that power, and he researched this before deleting him, based on evidence on the YTMND Wiki. Furthermore, you and him have been the only contributors on this article, and the original version was posted with Refault's POV, clearly seeking attention to the matter. Stukas and Refault clearly raided and vandalized both YTMND.com/wiki and wikipedia.org/Ytmnd pages, along with the List of YTMND Fads article in order to gain popularity (by placing links in the "Most Popular Fads"). Once again, the article on the main page is the point of view of Refault himself, therefore nulling all validity of it's content. It has no place in the article, period. I am deleting the section and expect it to not be shown again. Fyrestorm 20:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Refault's POV is why I rewrote the section. It is no longer biased, and it speaks from a neutral POV. The original version was biased. I have asked you to help me revise the article. Annihilating the article(with a disputed tag on it) is not an appropriate course of action. The entire point of the article is that vandalism appears to have happened from the POV of an admin, and that a deletion occurred because of this. You have confirmed that now.
I have also explained why the section is relevant. Regardless of content, admin abuse is an appropriate section to have in an article about a site based on user contributions. I am going to revert the article with the appropriate disputed tag on it, please do not remove it again or I will request that the article be protected. I have asked the Mediation Cabal to help us with this matter. Thanks. Dr. Ke 20:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Errr...Fyrestorm why was I banned from the YTMND wiki? I did not take part in any of that Alol stuff, I was RVing all the articles to their original content. --Stylesr 20:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

mediation

Hi. I'm the mediator for Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-10 YTMND. First off as of this posting I've never been to the YTMND website and as far as I know don't know anyone involved.

Second, I'm assuming the debate is about this section on admin abuse http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YTMND&oldid=52533360#Admin_Abuse Admin Abuse . Now my question for everyone involved is what 3rd party sources exist on this section. That is what can we site while keeping in line with WP:NOR on this issue? jbolden1517Talk 21:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume that our sources are the YTMND main Wikipedia(www.ytmnd.com/wiki), the YTMND main site(where the user Stukas was deleted from) and Fyrestorm(YTMND admin)'s comments on this very talk page. Dr. Ke 21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
If administrative abuse has taken place, then the people (mostly pertaining to the ones under that same that administration) must be aware. "Two users by the names of Stukas/Refault have been vandalizing both wikipedia/ytmnd wikis, linking sites that are not relevant to any of YTMND's history. /// Please check YTMND Wiki history on user Refault. He has posted sites that have no relevance to YTMND History (ex: OMFG Fad, supcat, Stukas being a "famous user")." The arguement that Refault's alleged biasedness of the article constitutes its deletion held water until Dr. Ke rewrote the section to adhere with Wikipedia's neutrality agreement. To throw such matter into clandestinely is liken unto censorship, and almost fascist. Thus, removing the 'Admin Abuse' section would adhere to vandalism being it is the intentional destruction of public information. LaLutteAvecCecil 21:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The YTMND article edit (Admin Abuse) was initiated by me and further added to by Dr. Ke, I was simply trying to provide a view from both "sides" of the YTMND user/admin base. I am sorry if the post was not following the NPOV, but then again the majority of the article is far from having a neutral point of view (look at the many controversial sections such as Criticism and Viewhacking.)
Also, note that I took NO PART in vandalizing the YTMND wiki. I only added the Admin Abuse section to wikipedia.org/wiki/YTMND. Please verify the users who did the vandalization(s), as the people can easily be mimiced on the internet these days. --Refault 21:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OK reading the above, I don't think you all understand the issue. We can't just assert user Stukas was deleted we need a 3rd party source for this (and we can't cite our own talk pages as anyone can register under any account name on wiklpedia). We can't just assert this vandalism took place or who did we need a 3rd party source. Etc... I'm not even addressing WP:NPOV I'm addressing No original research. If don't have a 3rd party source then we have to follow another procedure. But you will need 3rd party citations for the claims in this section. Is there anyplace on the web I could go to read about this incident at all? jbolden1517Talk 23:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

jbolden1517, refer to what Refault posted, there are already many gross NOR violations in this article. You could look up user Stukas on YTMND, who does not exist. You can't look at ytmnd wiki history as it appears to be down or removed(404 error). But regardless, I do not think you will be able to verify over half the content in that article under NOR guidelines. If you remove "Admin Abuse", a lot of other content in this article must be removed as well. I asked for mediation so that we could come to an agreement, not to justify the validity of article sections. As this article is for the most part not supported by any citations. Regards Dr. Ke 23:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact is that you have a debate between people who want a section eliminated and people who want to keep it. What I'm telling you is if content is original research then the eliminators win. There is no need for complex mediation when the rules are clear cut. The rest of the debate is going to be about things like quality of sources and neutral paraphrasing of sources. If you can rephrase " You could look up user Stukas on YTMND" as a link then you have a source that user Stukas doesn't exist. That's a source. But it doesn't get you very far because to prove a ban you are going to need to end up combining information and that is analysis and that is forbidden.
I think you are going to need to create the 3rd party sources for this section. jbolden1517Talk 23:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is absurd. Nothing in this article has a source. The entire page could be blanked by a vandal, and through your reasoning they would be in the right, because pretty much all of it is original research. 3rd party sources do not need to be created for this section, they need to be created for the entire article, through your reasoning. The only verified, undisputable fact in the article is that YTMND exists and it is a comedy site. I could give you a link to a nonexistent user profile for Stukas, but that proves nothing because A: the link could easily be to any user, it doesn't matter and B: a comedy site is not a reputable source of information.
The only thing you as a mediator have to go on is our discussion and comments by Fyrestorm asserting that is what he did.(I don't think he is going to deny his identity) If that is insufficient for the purposes of mediation then file an AFD for this article, as almost NOTHING in it fits within NOR guidelines. The only thing verifiable is that YTMND exists and it is a comedy site. Every other section is in no less violation than Admin Abuse is. Either this section remains or the entire article needs to be redone from scratch. What do you think is better? Regards Dr. Ke 00:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you really need to think about investing time in this article. WP:WEB list criteria for including articles about web sites.
  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.
  3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.
From what you are saying YTMND doesn't meet this criteria. There is a good chance the whole article ends up getting deleted. I'm not trying to be a prick I'm trying to save you heart ache. Create the 3rd party references and then you can bring information over to wikipedia. Without any 3rd party references this is all original research and you are going to be fighting an unending battle. jbolden1517Talk 00:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Only items in the History section are not verifiable, and only some of those at that. Most all of the introduction, "Origins", "Fads and memes", and "Media Exposure" is verifiable, and most of the "History" section is also verifiable. Also, being the subject of several news stories and other mentions, including CNN and the Wall Street Journal, entails that the website meets the criteria on WP:WEB. -- Centrx 01:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd hardly say it's admin abuse. First off, the wiki is dead, it wasn't being used for anything but self promotion. Second, no one has "admin" on YTMND except me. I'm the only person capable of deleting users or sites. The user emailed me and told me "his friend" was the one spamming the wiki, and he was guilty by association. I really don't see how deleting a single user requires the need of an "admin abuse" section. Obviously my opinion on the matter is biased but I think this was blown way out of proportion. If your friends are out to get you in trouble, I'd suggest you confront them, not bring drama to wikipedia. Macks 00:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Also to clear up any confusion, I own YTMND.com and deleted the user Stukas by hand after comparing the IPs used to edit the wiki and the IPs used to log into YTMND. Macks 00:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Macks. Good to have the owner or YTMND! Just as a point of policy we would prefer you not directly edit the article but rather stick to the talk pages exclusively. For this article you are a subject not an editor :-) If you want to say something on the record the best way to do it is to create a page on YTMND which addresses this issue and verifies who this is from. That creates a reputable 3rd party quote and then we can reproduce it here. The quote you have above is fine if you just want to reproduce it in a quotable location. Thanks --jbolden1517Talk 00:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
An admin abuse section needs to exist for YTMND(regardless of content) as YTMND is a site based entirely on user contributions. I do believe I said this before. It may have been that it was blown out of proportion, however the response of deleting the section is also a definite overreaction. The YTMND Wiki, which was the only real "evidence" is now deleted, so your IPs claim is unverifiable.
I refer to my original claim that the verifiability of this section is no less than any other section. It should be allowed to remain. Dr. Ke 00:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the terms of use available at: ytmnd.com/info/terms.html. If you feel that somehow my deleting your account isn't covered in those terms and warrants an "admin abuse" section on Wikipedia, let me know. You were deleted for spamming the YTMND wiki, and as soon as you were, you came here and have been trying to get your name on this page as well, imagine that. I delete people daily for all sorts of things, if you want to make an admin abuse section, please provide some solid information, as this section does not have it.

I put the wiki back up to offer this: www.ytmnd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Stukas&curid=1723&diff=4185&oldid=4184&rcid=2929. How can you seriously make a page highlighting your previous feats of trolling and spamming other people and sites and then claim you were an innocent bystander here? Troll more. Macks 01:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

www.ytmnd.com/wiki.txt Macks 01:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Section was removed by me (again), because seriously, it's been proven that it was a troll. End story. Fyrestorm 01:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Ke has also been reverting the troll's contributions in the List of YTMND Fads article by adding them with no existing sources (OMFG . I wouldn't be surprised if he was Stukas/attempting to troll. After all, he has been trying to dispute this with no credibility.

Example: "OMFG Mundane Objects A YTMND concept revolving around a mundane, usually inanimate object as the picture, and overly dramatic music as the audio. The majority of these YTMNDs appear to now have been deleted."

This was Stukas/Refault's troll/spamming. It wasn't a fad, and it doesn't deserve mention on the main YTMND article at all. I apologize if I seem strict, but this is blatant trolling. Fyrestorm 02:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, ok, where should I start. Firstly: I am not Stukas, nor am I Refault. I did not originally write that article, I revised it. That can clearly be seen in the history.
Secondly: www.ytmnd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Stukas&curid=1723&diff=4185&oldid=4184&rcid=2929, I do not see how this is relevant. It is a troll posting under the name "Stukas". If anything, that would seem to support the section as it was written.
Thirdly: Your ad hominem comments and attempts to defame me as a "troll" are not appropriate nor are they helping to resolve this issue.
Fourthly, and this is the only valid point brought up: YTMND terms of use. I do not see the particular item you are referring to that invalidates this article. Perhaps the item about "We reserve the right to terminate your service at any time" Any registration based site has that. It does not excuse, nor should it permit unscrupulous administrative behavior. I would however suggest that you help to revise this section rather than deleting it. Reverted, and I will ask that the section not be deleted again until this issue is resolved or it may be necessary to protect this page. Thank you. Dr. Ke 03:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me reiterate that I did not vandalize the YTMND wiki, I only added the "Admin Abuse" section to wikipedia.org/wiki/YTMND when Stukas, a person I kept in contact with on YTMND and MSN Messenger, informed me about the information. I added the "Admin Abuse" section to try and bring an already biased article some different points of view. I did not intend to troll the Wikipedia YTMND article whatsoever.
It is easy for one to impersonate another on the internet. In the above link to the YTMND Wiki, it looks like I was the vandal of their site. Let me reiterate that I did not partake in or contribute to the malicious edits on the YTMND Wiki.--
Refault 04:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

'Stukas' emailed me the following email after I deleted his account: www.ytmnd.com/wiki.txt. I verified that this was the user's email address on the account. So Dr. Ke isn't Stukas but Stukas is emailing me from "Dr Ke" <kaineternal@gmail.com>? Continue adding the admin abuse section, continue to troll this discussion page and misquote me. This is a pointless argument and I'm just going to leave it up to the wikipedia moderator now. Macks 05:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

www.ytmnd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Stukas&diff=prev&oldid=4182 End of story. You are no longer permitted to speak, or pretend you are not Stukas, Jake. Get off the interweb. -Mysekurity [m!] 22:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Text file = irrefutable proof. I did not make that edit. Dr. Ke 22:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
dead link

YTMNSFW?

Prehaps there should be an elaboration, other than just a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.92.85 (talk • contribs)

If you read the history section a little more closely, you would see that it is mentioned there. -Whomp 17:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said there should be an elaboration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.92.85 (talk • contribs)

In October 2005 a stricter moderation system went into effect that prompted deletion of many YTMNDs and the addition of age verification. YTMNDs deemed "not safe for work" were placed in the domain ytmnsfw.com.
If that's not elaborate enough for you, why don't you add to it? Anyone can edit this article, you know. -Whomp 16:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I would but I don't know much about it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.92.85 (talk • contribs)

What is unclear about it or what should be elaborated? Are you referring to the term "not safe for work"? -- Centrx 01:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Fads and memes

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)

I added an importance tag (most of it is on PTKFGS, anyway). -Whomp 22:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
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)

What happened to the actual YTMND fad list? When I try to go to it, I get redirected here...

Same... don't tell me they deleted that... o_O

They are now on YTMND wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.50.39.47 (talk • contribs) . 

     Do you have a link for that?

Here's the ytmnd wiki:ytmnd.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page. 24.188.203.181 01:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Mystery Song

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)

February 29

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)

Well, the event mention is true; I wish I knew the real date, though. -Whomp 22:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Scientology C&D Letter

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) It should be, Max put up a Scientology section on the main page to spite them and there's a whole lot of anti scientology pages now. --FigmentJedi 00:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Lead

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)

I believe grammar would demand the comma. --Lanik 19:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Err.. that's the point, it's written without proper grammar, so it can simple be accompanied by a "[sic]".. It's what it is called, "You're The Man Now Dog!"; not "you're the man now, dog!"--84.249.252.211 01:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

History Grammar correction

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)

NN, D Monty2 04:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Monty, wrong place. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 05:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Wrong? Monty2 06:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
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)

dustindiamond.com

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)

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)

Hooray for me!

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)

Which is better?

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 [T] [C] 03:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

NEDM

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)

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)

NEDM

This is crazy. I look up NEDM, and it just redirects me here, with *no* explanation of what it means. There needs to be a seperate fad list, or individual entries for the major ones. Monty2 05:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

wiki.ytmnd.com/Fads is the site you want. 68.54.144.201 14:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
YTMND Wiki also has an entry for NEDM, wiki.ytmnd.com/NEDM. Anyways, the reason why we don't have a fads list is because there are about a billion fads and so we haven't found a specific criteria for what's inclusive for Wikipedia. —this is messedrocker (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It means Not Even Doom Music... basically saying that "not even doom music will get you a 5 star vote." That's the jist of it anyway. --Chronocore 20:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, it's far worse now. NEDM is now blocked from being created again?! Monty2 07:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Wait a week - it will all be forgotten. Fads are byu definition transient, which is why it's much better to leave their documentation to the YTMND wiki. Just zis Guy you know? 08:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, NEDM looks like it's going to be a YTMND staple, and probably won't die, since NEDM found its way into YTMND subculture. It still will never be encyclopedic unless it spreads outside YTMND to various places. Sir Crazyswordsman 14:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's obvious that fads don't deserve their own article, but NEDM isn't as much of a fad, as its had its own private war by now. I think it doesn't need an article so much, but I think it should still be open to debate.

Talk page banners

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)

YTMND down?

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)

I think so. Opera's Touch the Wire widget reports so. Pacific Coast Highway • blah 03:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
How can I get my upvote fix now? :pPacific Coast Highway • blah 03:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Internet fails while ytmnd is down. NA Magus 03:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Shoulda brought our own weapons. Srsly. NA Magus 03:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Safety was not guaranteed, ouch. 24.188.203.181 04:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It was probably all the zidaneheads clogging up the bandwidth :< It went down while I was submitting a YTMND Mewchu11 03:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

The Zidane fad was fun though. 24.188.203.181 04:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

YTMND has been back up for a while. —this is messedrocker (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Confusing passage to me

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)

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)

Citations

How many citations do you guys need. Seriously, we need to clean it up some, we dont need to cit a source for pointless things like "Max is male". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.131.91 (talk • contribs)

While "Max is male" obviously doesn't need to be sourced, basically any and every claim in the article has to be backed up by a source. —this is messedrocker (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Some things do not need to be claimed. Its like this with every article.
All things need to be backed by a source. They don't have to be individualy cited as long as the source is listed in the Sources section (WP:NOR is quite clear here). YTMND wiki is a great place to document that which fails our verifiability criteria. Just zis Guy you know? 08:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Like the fact that steamsteamlol.ytmnd.com exists? Some of the claims in this article are debated despite the fact that you don't need a reference, you only have to see it to see the sentence is right. How about I demand that we remove Wikipedia, because we can't be sure if any of the things described in Wikipedia, or the entire universe for that matter, exist and are not figments of our imagination? Also, I have seen MANY Wikipedia articles where a source is not cited for every sentence.--72.70.53.87 23:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Every sentence of every article needs to be sourced in one way or another. If there's a non-really-obvious part that isn't sourced, that's a problem. While giving a couple of links may justify every sentence, it's not the best way. I want all articles to have as high quality as possible, and using the best known citation method is one step of getting there. —this is messedrocker (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter, Wikipedia is communism. Roffler 21:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

List of YTMND fads

this page needs a list of ytmnd fads —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.146.15 (talk • contribs)

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)

Crazy Telemarketer

I think there needs to be information on the Crazy Telemarketer Call and the conflict with ebaums and the forum raids......

How much can honestly be written on it? A guy posted an mp3 on the Internet, eBaum's World stole it, and YTMNDers acted immature about it. To go into extensive detail would most likely be original research, which is forbidden. —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Its looking like your just attempting to keep this off wiki for your own personal reasons. If the first conflict is on here, so does the second.
Looking at it you may well be right that the first conflict is also WP:OR and has no place here. Just zis Guy you know? 09:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
While your points stand undeniable, I find it very surprising that this problem has not come up in other Wikipedia articles, almost leading me to question your intent (ALMOST. I respect Wikipedia enough to know you have your rules for a good reason). For example, while many news articles cover the plot of movies, many articles on movies on Wikipedia go into much more detail than the articles. The source for this is usually just the movie itself, as it seems to me.--72.70.53.87 20:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I cant give citations or proof becasue its on ytmnd's forums, which are currently down and i know you guys have a policy on heresay but its from the guy who made the ytmnd.

YTMND's forums are not a reliable source anyway. It's a teapot tempest, leave it to the YTMND wiki / blog / forums to document it. Just zis Guy you know? 15:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The accusations that messedrocker is trying to keep this off for personal reasons are unfounded, but this still deserves a part in the article. - Kookykman|(t)e 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why. I think the best way to cover fads is simply to send people to YTMND's wiki, where there are no verifiability or original research standards to worry about. Just zis Guy you know? 12:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but external linking to these YTMNDs will have a point here, and only here (no links to YTMNDs in other articles, just this one). I know what WP:EL says, but WP:EL is not a policy, and does not have to be followed unless we want to make this a GA or an FA. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I do believe this article was being cleaned up to be a candidate for FA a while back, maybe I'm mistaken. Either way I feel that WP:EL should be stuck to as much as possible, even if it isn't policy, the last thing we need in this article is links to 50 YTMNDs or the YTMND forums Canadian-Bacon 03:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

YTMND-Ebausmworld conflicts

Since this has been the second time YTMND has raided Ebuamsworld, i feel that section needs to be expanded. For the record, the semi-official names for these two raids are YTMND-Day and Operation Telemarket Garden. 24.167.68.211 12:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See my other response. —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It has as much of your "Original research" as the First conflict
These raids warrant nothing but a good spanking on the bottom for the ytmnd kids who did it.
I'm not arguing: People even protested on YTMND that this is no longer the way to retaliate. --72.70.53.87 20:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Heh! I think User:Fastifex will be happy to oblige there :-) Just zis Guy you know? 14:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think thousands of users/witnesses counts as original research. Even people at eBaumsWorld will tell you "Yeah, they came and raided our forum and shit..." Not to mention the countless YTMNDs made on it, and I think there might be a news article out there.--72.70.53.87 23:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I also think citing witness accounts to form an account of what happened counts as original research. —ptk✰fgs 23:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Rude Kitty

The recent conflict between YTMND users and the "creator" of Rude Kitty should be added to the Conflicts section. Though not as major, it still shows the power that the YTMND community has. --69.144.162.99 11:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Rubiksphere

The power for us to completely ruin the MSAC in a matter of hours, and watch her "friends" pages all "mysteriously" change to NEDM references? :) Happy Cat 1, RUDE KITTY 0. Gotta love groups.myspace.com/NEDMWar ;D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.34.248.8 (talk • contribs)

"Rude Kitty"? Who's this now trying to mess with YTMND? Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 22:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Certian people on YTMD have decided than an image of the head of a British Shorthair is theirs and they are attacking someones myspace page in order to try and get them to remove it or somthing. All fails WP:V so delete on sight.Geni 00:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ive re added it, dont remove it again people. --Xyther 01:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
no, the problem is that the image is in the public domain, and this person "trademarked" it. It also appears as though he's selling shirts with the cat on it. Ziiv 08:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone cares the image orininal appears to have come from here although now dead.Geni 02:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am Deleting this section. Again. Please note, to anyone here from YTMND: This article, although about the website, is not a collection of fads and memes. Please save those for YTMNDWiki. Although you may find this conflict important for this week, it is by no means encyclopedic, and hardly pertainant to the overall history of YTMND. Regards. --KPWM_Spotter 03:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Ill agree to leave it when you tell me who you are to decide what is relevant. I suppose you would feel differently if this involved your airplanes. --Xyther 09:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well start with WP:V and WP:NOR.Geni 11:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry Xyther, I'm not going to give you a satisfactory response to your flame-baiting. I may not know as much about YTMND as you do, but I do know the general idea of how things are run around here at Wikipedia, and if we were to host every little argument and fad on this page it would not be coherent, nor encyclopedic. --KPWM_Spotter 15:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone cares about the underlying causes of the conflict, there's a nice explanation here nedmwar.ytmnd.com -- Z Geiger 12:34, 29 July, 2006

I've added a new subsection under "Conflicts". I think it is worth noting that Livejasmin threatened legal action, and the Myspace issues deserve at least a sentence. I think this is a pretty reasonable compromise. Esteffect 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't have a source.Geni 21:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what would justfiy as an acceptable source in this case? I cant think of anything that wouldn't be classified as WP:NOR or YTMNDcruft. Elouamn 19:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Newspaper. It could get covered in an acerdemic paper on internet comunities. Something like that.Geni 21:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Uh...I just wrote one up again, sorry, I didn't see there was controversy. But I'm tired of you people asking for excessive sources. I'm about to petition to remove the "LOL" article because it is unverifiable. How can you be sure that anyone uses the phrase "lol" until you've been on a few chats and such? There is no article or specific source that has ever said "lol is a common phrase on the internet". It's mostly taken for granted.
Also, the fact that the war happened is hard to deny. Go to Google and put in the following search: nedm "rude kitty" -site:ytmnd.com
You will get a number of forum posts everywhere about it. If witnesses don't work, then 9/11 never happened.--72.70.53.87 23:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to ever be considered a usable reference, Wikipedia must cite reliable sources to make sure that things are correct and not lies. Eyewitness accounts and forum posts do not qualify as reliable sources, since not only are forums not designed to be knowledgebases, people could be lying or retell the story very inaccurately (goodness knows what their motivation would be). Reliable references like newspapers, magazines, and informational websites qualify as reliable sources because their intent is to provide accurate information; whereas doing the opposite would make their integrity questionable (which could result in lost profit for them). It's also a situation of importantness here; if it's important enough, a newspaper will do a report on it. That newspaper is a good reference. If we're going to be building a knowledgebase of fact, we have to make sure that these facts are indeed facts that can be ensured as facts. It's a pain, but it's the right way to do it. If you'd like to learn more, see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:No original research.

I don't want to come off as a mean-spirited reference nazi; I'm just following the rules and doing what's best for Wikipedia. If a reliable source comes up for the Rude Kitty/NEDM war, feel free to write a section. I also notice you made a reference to 9/11 — that article is verifiable because all the media outlets wrote articles about it, plus there are countless government and book sources for it. Basically, eyewitness accounts aren't forbidden — they just need to be published elsewhere (on an appropriate information outlet) before they're published on Wikipedia. —this is messedrocker (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not even doom music can save the Rude Kitty subsection. Roffler 21:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for including conflicts

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)

  • One important one: it must have been covered by reliable secondary sources. Also, if you want the unfuny truth in there I will resist it. It made some noise due to googlebombing but it has no obvious authority and is primarily a colection of existing info and pictures of unknown copyright status. Documenting the popularity of individual YTMND fads is a job for the YTMND wiki. Just zis Guy you know? 08:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The unfunny truth is actually banned from Wikipedia. Someone actually made a YTMND about it ("Wikipedia sides with Scientology"). We can't include that for that reason alone. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
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)

Original Research and Fads

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)

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)
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)

I just want to comment on this that I think the fact that YTMNDs make reference to one another and that similar YTMNDs are referred to as fads is not OR because it is a conclusion that one would obviously come to. The latter claim especially isn't OR because the behavior specified is part of the DEFINITION of a fad. Marsman57 15:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So, we are in agreeance that the description of fads is NOT original research? As far as a list of fads, the YTMND wiki has that covered. I think that the present section for fads, therefore, is adequate at the moment. EDIT: Ia took out the OR tags and placed a reference to Answers.com's article on YTMND. I think this should suffice for the time being.StvnLunsford 17:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)

YTMND raided runevillage.com!

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)

Zazaban, don't take it personally. If you look at the YTMNSFW forums (the only ones up), you'll see that there are a few people that do the majority of the attacks. 99% of people on YTMND don't do stuff like this. StvnLunsford 23:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

YTMND to raid planeshift forums?

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

Unlike last time, we wouldn't be mentioning specific fads (unless we resolve we could), just specific YTMNDs. And unlike last time, we have a specific criterion that would please the verifiability, and to an extent, the notability cabal. My proposed notability criteria for mentioning popular YTMNDs on this page stands at Hall of Fame listing and mentioned by the media. —this is messedrocker (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
I meant mentioning media cited YTMND's. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 04:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
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)

So will the single criterion be mentioned-by-the-press or a combination of that and a listing on the Hall of Fame like I originally proposed? And will we do this via a "notable creations" section? —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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)
Sounds good to me.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 22:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Max keeps an archive of media sightings in the "about" section. Sir Crazyswordsman 15:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I didn't say it. :p Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
You can't copyright a C&D letter. :) Sir Crazyswordsman 13:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's get a list here: which YTMNDs are we going to feature first? —this is messedrocker (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning the Lee Kaplan fiasco

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've marked it up for deletion, so have at it, ladies and gents. StvnLunsford 02:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Work on this Article for FA

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Does anyone know what happened to YTMND?

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)

The YTMND Wiki has a list of all sites that have appeared in Reliable sources

Knock yourself out. Sir Crazyswordsman 16:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

No need to withhold the article of content if it's perfectly referenced and notable. The section can be called "Notable creations". —this is messedrocker (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Reasons for not promoting

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:YTMND/Archive_2&oldid=1041043566"