Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica/Archive1

Wassup?
Wassup? They block you Pyro? Susan purrrrr ...  15:02, 17 December 2007 (EST)
 * Not under that name, at any rate. Also, it's not really a wikipedia parody (that's uncyclopedia), it's more like the temple of the high priests of internet drama that got annexed by /b/. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

/b/?- 15:46, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Encyclopædia Dramatica sucks. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 98.17.57.143 / talk / contribs

You pick on them for only caring about goatse when all you have is stupid goats? OIPOTT 16:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)
 * Hey - don't pick on the goats.PFoster 16:09, 18 December 2007 (EST)
 * That's not true! We also have LLamae! And long-eared jerboas, curse their filthy little hides. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 16:19, 18 December 2007 (EST)

I used to have a tally of actual quality articles on ed, but I lost it. There are(were?) even a few pages on the site that are bizarrely SFW. But don't ever go on a two hour random spree on ed. I had to go watch old kids shows for a few hours to clean my mind. Tyrannis (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Always fail?
It's not particularly well written, but you've got to love an article on Bible slash fiction. I suddenly feel in a very-important-message-for-Ken kinda mood... --Robledo 17:49, 20 December 2007 (EST)

funniest site ever
ed is teh funniest site ever

kill teh white man&mdash; Unsigned, by: Straha / talk / contribs
 * I can has chesseburger? kitteh sez NOOOOOOO. Thanx fur teh laff! Kthnxbai. 17:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I love Lynx and Lamb
Was it Uncyclopedia that was rated the best wiki by Mashable's People's Choice Awards? No, it was ED. So while YOU may bash ED, the average person thinks it is the best wiki around. LOL. Jed Barkley 20:57, 15 January 2009 (EST)


 * RW is secretly run by pro-uncyc conservapedia boobs. The Blonde and Ginger Collection 21:08, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Smacks of butthurt.
It's odd that this website is disparaged for poor-writing (I've found several that were witty, among a see of, as Encyclopaedia Dramatica readily admits, shit.), especially considering Uncyclopedia is praised for "wonderful satire". When I think of Uncyclopedia, I think text-walls of AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA and "lol so randum XD" and lolcats. 139.62.178.82 16:48, 20 April 2009 (EDT)
 * lol That was me. I wrote that ^.  comamaos 00:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am tempted to just revert your edit again but I would rather talk this out. The fact that it upsets you means I think we got it right. Why should we act like it is anything but trash? Especially if you are going to go around calling people "butt-hurt" makes me think you are just a child and deserve mocking. 07:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What is your problem with the article as it was? 07:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "...I would rather talk this out."
 * "...you are just a child and deserve mocking."

Awful hard to understand you from all the way down here, Mister. Maybe if you got off that high horse? comamaos 07:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What is your problem with the article as it was? 07:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It really gives RationalWiki the wrong image. I'm not sure if there's a word for this kind of attitude, but you know some people who just insist that using swear words are a sure sign of lack of intelligence?  You know, god forbid a paleontologist should drop the f-bomb like a guy at a bar?  That basic attitude, here applied to a much broader range of obscenity, signified the Pretentious, Pseudo-Intellectual Douchebag.  I'd figure what we'd want at RationalWiki would be to loosen our cheeks enough to let the metal rod fall out, ya know?  To show that, being intelligent, reasonable people who rally behind the cause of intelligence and reason, we don't see this kind of vulgarity or vitriol (most of which is written in such a way as to form something of a meta-joke concerning *channer vernacular, beyond memes and catchphrases, to say nothing of the portions of it which are written in "neat" wit) as any affront to what we stand for, but raunchy entertainment.  I'd say it's a lot funnier than this goat-meme, and certainly above Uncyclopedia.  comamaos 07:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a fine line between "raunchy entertainment" and silly childish rubbish. Most of what ED has is not really of the former and a lot of the latter, so I see no point in emphasising its rarity at the expense of its common. I personally think most of the "jokes" here should go if they can be replaced with quality material, but that is another conversation. 07:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm actually reading their article on Epic Threads now. Brother, you seriously need to either read some of the good ones or just accept that the humor-value of ED is a contentious issue.  I was pretty fair in including ED fail, but why you're getting so particularly worked up about "childish humor" is beyond me.  Also, high horse: get off it.  You dropped your monocle, btw. comamaos 07:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I'll start the conversation then, I think your edits white washed the article too much. 07:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll proceed with it: it's not like I edited the Conservapedia article and talked about how scientific they are. comamaos 07:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really relevant here. 07:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me elaborate, then: it's a humor site. It's not an affront to rationalism or science.  It's not Conservapedia, it's not Metapedia, it's not IHateNiggers R US.  It's a humor site.  Some people liek, and some people do not want.  I feel like I left a fair amount of ED's inherent fail within the article.  Why so serious, holmes? comamaos 07:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I have added what you wrote abouts it humour in addition to what is already there. Are you happier with it now? 07:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just apply Godwin's Law to this conversation and you've got yourself a compromise! :) [sticks hand out] comamaos 07:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds a lot like something Hitler would do. 08:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, well, "Phantom Hoover" decided to be a dick and change it back. I can't get this image out of my head of people quoting Monty Python and the Holy Grail... and no other Monty Python movie or the sketches. I have no idea why. comamaos 07:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned
I've kind of cleaned it up as it was doing to much from "oh it's utter shit" to "but it has its moments" every seven words. 14:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OldDirtyBtard
Massive ED contributor OldDirtyBtard killed himself on Saturday. Should this be mentioned in tha article? 19:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Prolly not, since we haven't namechecked any other editors, & mentioning a guy just to say that he's dead seems a bit irrelevant. Unless he had Jimbo style status at the site, & there are sources other than ED confirming his death, I'd say leave it out.   19:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Who? Srsly? Is he Leaving and Never Coming Back?  Are you sure?  00:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly looks that way. 14:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This site is over!
It should not be recognized. It has done away with any lulz. Smellingkate (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

encyclopediadramatica.ch
encyclopediadramatica.ch is not a mirror site, it is the new ed. It is created by die-hard fans and a reboot of the previous site --In any case (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And we don't care... 08:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is too premature to give it too much weight. Maybe in 6-12 months, everyone will agree it is the "new ED". Then again, it might fizzle out into nothing. Too early to say what'll happen.
 * That is the nature of 'project forks' - it takes time to evaluate how successful they are. -- 11:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A quick note for the ED refugees who have just joined us
You've noticed, no doubt, that we are rather lulzy around here. This is true, and we appreciate good lulz. However, there are two things that you need to keep in mind: your lulz must be based on a reasonable approximation of scientific and/or mainstream historical consensus, and they must be relevant ("on-mission") to what we do here. Keep that in mind, and be ready to provide references if challenged, and you'll do just fine here. EVDebs (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh, stuff on religious bigots also works. Meanwhile I'll register on one of the mirrors now...Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 03:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

ED resurrection
Would just like to query the recent reversion of the changes made to the ED page? While I respect the decision, and am not planning an edit war of any kind, I do consider that the changes made were done with good intent, were factual, and could not be reasonably construed as vandalism - am fairly new to wiki editing (inb4 flameage!) so constructive advice would be appreciated - 94.196.33.38
 * The resurrection is, at present, a couple of forks that members have pulled from Google's cache. There's still no indication of whether or not these new projects will be viable - if they are, we'll update accordinly. For now, mention has been made of the forks. Also, why not create an account - we're less way of account holders than BoN editors. -- PsyGremlin  14:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the response - I might well join you, can't promise much OC though - your subject matter and approach to it does keenly interest me, but I'm not sure if I know enough to contribute in that way just yet - I've found myself to be pretty good at writing in general though, and tidying articles up, so I'll see what I can do... - 94.196.33.38
 * The forks will be interesting to watch. I know opinion is often split when ED goes too far. It could be that one ends up as a cleaner version of ED and once ends up as something much, much worse. ADK ...I'll exterminate your hailstone! 14:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've put the article back into present tense, as ED.ch has been up for four months now. Though apparently it was being run by Ryan Cleary, who's just been arrested as a suspected member of Lulzsec ... - David Gerard (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cleary's arrest has no impact on the future of Encyclopaedia Dramatica.-- 15:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

mission
Probably not. Don't get me wrong, I love getting ED some exposure, but I've come to realize that RationalWiki mainspace isn't the place for that.-- 03:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cue Brx concern trolling, focusing on himself, having a whaa, saying something tasteless and the article ends up staying right where it is. There we go, conversation finished. So, no - it is as on mission as the Wikipedia page. Aceace 03:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * More like as on mission as Uncyclopedia, i.e. not really, but despite that I don't think it should be deleted. You need to come up with a better argument than "it's not refuting pseudoscience and stuff, therefore delete as off-mission" -- Nx  / talk 07:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No no! We must expand the mission to accommodate it. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's one of those things that doesn't actively damage the mission, though. We could delete it, but that means the ED article on RationalWiki would have to alter its currently butthurt status over the content of this article, which I think is asking for far too much effort. Scarlet A.pngmoral 17:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well this was awkward to read.... Scarlet A.pnggnostic 17:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Trust me, it even was even awkwarder to type. Aceace 19:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The RW article there is in serious need of improvement anyways. It's on my to-do list, although not much ever gets done on that.--  17:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Bricks accusing someone else of butthurt? Lolirony.   19:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ace: You criticisms are pretty lame, would you like me to find a better criticism?
 * Brx/ED: Lol, you are butthurt!
 * Ace: WTF?
 * Aceace 19:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's ED, you should have typed things out very clearly using only small words. Like "lulz". Scarlet A.pngtheist 20:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it reminded me why I have never spent any more than 10 minutes on ED. What a horrible place. I imagine Brx is quite popular over there. Aceace 20:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Every little shit attracts flies. -- 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am rank and file, with a low profile- on ED-- 00:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

deletion
The article on Uncyclopedia was deleted, I would like to reopen the deletion discussion for this one. How is it on mission?-- 02:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to point you to the above discussion. -- il' Dictator   Mikal  02:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The only thing salient about the above discussion (which was largely oriented towards belittling me) was Armondikov saying that mission isn't such a big deal all the time, and I think in light of the deletion of the article on Uncyclopedia, the question of whether or not to delete this one is still open.-- 03:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And can you give a better reason then "well, mission and another article was deleted"?-- il' Dictator   Mikal  03:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, this again. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * just Brx trying to get attention. Move along. AceModerator 03:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Anybody other than the usual chuckleheads want to participate? Uncyclopedia was removed, why not ED?-- 01:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Unless there is something about ED that makes is substantially more important than Uncyclopedia, then there is no point having an article. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Mr Anon - you'd be wise not to align yourself with Brx. He'll only bring you down. AceModerator 03:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ, Ace, this isn't about politics. It's about whether the article should be deleted.-- 03:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you want this deleted Brx? Why? AceModerator 03:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll try to keep out of this, but I will say this: the burden of proof lies on you to show why the article is necessary, not Brx to prove why it is not. I think that's already been established with the mass deletion of conservapedia articles. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. AceModerator 03:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. But if you want a reason why, I'll give it to you.  Again.  It's off-mission.-- 03:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So are many articles - why are you focused on this one? AceModerator 03:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I also want to see TV Tropes deleted. I have partaken in a number of discussions on this wiki concerning missionality.  Generally what gets me involved in such a discussion is me seeing it on recent changes.-- 03:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well put it to vote then you weird fucker. AceModerator 03:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Many things are off mission. -- il' Dictator   Mikal  03:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's mostly consistent with mission. We discuss hate sites in the context of fundamentalism, authoritarianism, and crankery. If Stormfront is relevant, ED is relevant. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 20:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There, I brought back Uncyclopedia. Now we can have both. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that actually got a vaporize vote. Тyrannis An iron, but caring, fist 03:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * meh. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind. I'm prepared to vote on banning Brxbrx. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 03:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * !Voting is overrated. 02:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not from this article, from the entire fucking thing. He's worthless scum. Take this as the opening of my campaign. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish this community had an automated protocol that coops every user that proposes to ban another user without a single evidence-of-misconduct providing link. --84.158.81.160 (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete

 * 1) -- 06:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Mr. Anon (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) --David Gerard (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) ED are fascist, racist, misogynist cranks. The site needs to be discussed for what it is. It's not "funny," it's horrible. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Nutty.   19:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) ^-- il' Dictator   Mikal  19:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) We have English Shieldwall and Yahoo! Answers, similar sinkholes of hate and/or stupidity. I don't see what the problem is. People going "it's off mission" "no it isn't" aren't really helping much.  Sophie  because liberals  19:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) What Nutty Roux said. --Raga Man (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Nutty is wise and speaks many truths from his many orifices. AceModerator 20:34, 29 May 20E12 (UTC)
 * 8) Scarlet A.pngbomination  21:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) -- il'  Dictator   Mikal  06:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ban Brx

 * 1) From this article - David Gerard (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) With the might of a thousand Mjolnirs. 13:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oh yes. Тyrannis An iron, but caring, fist 13:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) From RationalWiki. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|95px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) -- il' Dictator   Mikal  19:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oh yes. AceModerator 20:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

David Gerard needs to take a break. Where is Ace McWicked when we need him?
DG is entirely obsessed. .

Seeing his revert, I thought, maybe there is some obscure British usage of "tit" to mean ... what? What that would apply to Encyclopedia Dramatica?

Tits are useful objects that provide nourishment and pleasure for their owners and others. Twits are ... David Gerard et al. OMG! Conflict of Interest! Censorship! To the Coop!

David Gerard just desysopped me, so, fortunately, I can't block him to smithereens, it was just in time. I'd have blocked everyone else just for good measure, and then deleted the Main page, etc. Whew! All over a couple of tits. Or is it twits?

I wish it was about tits. That would be *much* more interesting. Hey, Ace McWiked, you've got some tits, right? Care to supply us with images? --Abd (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No tits for you, peasant. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 01:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't know what 'tit' means in this context? It's much more appropriate than 'twit' here. Peter Rapidly running out of marmite 02:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I don't know. Tits, please. Ace, you are cruel, er ... wicked. I looked up "tit."
 * Okay, I'm always right, I know, I know, but just in case, I looked it up again. This time, on Wiktionary, I found:
 * ''(UK, pejorative, slang) An idiot; a fool.
 * That would be a synonym for "twit," then. UK. David Gerard is from the UK. Suspect you are, too, PeterL.
 * Lots of dictionaries of slang don't show the meaning of "fool." Wiktionary is, of course, a Wikimedia Project, where David Gerard would be, ah, highly influential. Never mind, probably means nothing.
 * I'm an American, and I had no clue, other than "fool" from context. I.e., I assumed that "twit" was meant. I wonder what other RationalWikians think. Especially American women!
 * Any have the balls to speak up here? Or are you tits? --Abd (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * -- Mikal Harass  Follow 03:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not from the UK. "Tit" (appropriately enough) has a connotation of obscenity, while "twit" is a bit quaint-sounding and implies "upper-class twit of the year" more than anything else. I do love how you slide a paranoid conspiracy theory into here as everywhere, but in a JAQing off 'don't really believe it but just putting it out there' kind of way. Peter Rapidly running out of marmite 05:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why I skip the niceties and go straight for "cuntbollock". Scarlet A.pngpathetic 11:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel that you can call someone "a bit of a tit" without being too offensive. Twit is a bit old fashioned - as used by maiden aunts from Leaminton Spa or Tunbridge Wells. The interesting one is "twat" which either means "fool" or a rather vulgar term for the vulva, depending on which part of the country you come from. Bad Faith (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, this is RW. Almost nothing here has to do with the price of fish. I'm glad that you love the conspiracy theory slide, PeterL. Lots of sliding going on here. What we can call someone without being "too offensive" is subject to context. There is only one content issue here, and that would be whether, "tit" or "twit" or "twat" or whatever is to be preferred in the article. My point on the text is really that "tit" doesn't communicate the intended meaning for most readers as well as "twit." It might do so for those familiar with the slang usage, which does communicate more broadly than to a British audience, through the common trope that slang names of female sexual parts connote stupidity or weakness or the like, hence, "cunt," "pussy," "twat," and, in this case, "tit." I could add, "boob." I'd never seen the usage of tit, yet still did get the intended meaning.
 * Male sexual parts connote something quite different, as I pointed out with "balls," and "prick" or "dick" refer to a person being uncivilly aggressive. Not stupid. However, I'll concede, "schmuck" does convey stupidity or lack of clue. There is no accounting for Yiddish.
 * Of course, the etymology of "tit" might possibly have nothing to do with the female sexual part, it might even be related to "twit." But I doubt it. Now, the price of fish? --Abd (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

TL;DR
TL;DR redirects here and the string is used by RW users in various places around the site. I assume it's an in joke but it's not explained on this page. Anyone care to enlighten me or am I not professed to the right level for such sacred knowledge yet ;) --Barryjon (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * TL;DR: "Too long; didn't read." Basically, it meant for very long, ranty posts that are often soooo long you stop reading after a little while because it becomes tedious. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's because the entry for RationalWiki at ED used to just be a redirect to their page on TL;DR. I can't now find this revision; it was probably at the old site & they do now have a page on RW, albeit not a very interesting one.  So yes, a joke, & a rather out of date one.  09:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Should this be in Category:Homophobia, Category:Racism, and Category:Sexism?
Talk to Civic Cat  18:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Doesn't strike me as useful to people looking at those categories - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Howzat?Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   21:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * David Gerard might be too busy to answer my post. Anyone else?Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   22:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, their purpose is offend. If we put it into every group it offends, it would also have liberal bias, conservative bias, communist and fascist, etc. 142.22.16.53 (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Should we give a rat's ass if they offend communists and fascists? They kinda deserve it. Women, LGBTs, and races don't.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   23:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * but the points is, it also offends other people. You could apply the same reasoning and say that Christians, Muslims, Hindus, conservatives, George Bush, Cheney, etc don't deserve to be offended. 142.22.16.53 (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (The standard curses upon all wankers who conflate multiple issues under "offend/offense/offensive" apply.)
 * No, the question is whether ED exhibits these behaviors/traits, not whom it "offends", and whether it would be useful for RW's readers to find it if they open the respective categories.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So by that, if say, a GOP'er often used blatantly racist, sexist, and homophobic language, and was helped a lot by racists, sexists, and homophobes, but when strapped to a 100% accurate lie-detector test and was cleared of being a racist, sexist, or homophobe personally, a RW article about him wouldn't have him in these categories.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   21:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

So since nobody has responded to my last post in over a year, I'll put this article in the aforementioned categories in several weeks. Talk to Civic Cat   18:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How about "that's ridiculously tenuous justification" and "no" - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You talkin', not proving.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   19:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Doesn't strike me as useful to people looking at those categories" as others concurred still stands - David Gerard (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

and most people would likely figure out that the article White supremacy might make the odd reference to racism without having to look at the category. Talk to Civic Cat   19:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Did it.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   20:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And reverted by Weaseloid, without explanation, 8 minutes later. Heroics apologist try to explain this in my talk page here: User talk:Civic Cat. I've yet to give it a decent read. This I'll do. I'll talk later, here, and act accordingly: likely putting back my categories in. But as I'm not currently in the mood for fighting Weaseloid, David Gerard, or the other milords, I'll wait a while.Civic Cat sig 2.PNG Talk to Civic Cat   18:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Some insider context about the pre-OhInternet website
Looking at my recently reverted edit, it does come across as too positive for the subject manner. Regardless how much "better" the leaders were than most of the editors, they were always motivated by some form of retaliation and were extremely lazy about moderating their site. There were no good guys in any of it; it was complete and utter scum versus some morally dubious people.

Outside of on-and-off reading of a few articles throughout the years, my main experience with the site was the year leading up to the deletion. I was mostly just fascinated with how and why these people can be so shamelessly awful and was surprised by how... I guess "not completely horrible" the leaders were. They reveled in shocking, horrible topics along with calling out what they perceived to be bad behavior, but they were cordial and you actually could talk with them about the issues you had with articles without being completely dismissed. I don't remember too many early cases of them actually acquiescing to demands, but at the same time, they only seemed to post chat logs when the other person was acting like a dick. They often talked about how much they utterly loathed Anonymous, actual bigots, and everybody bringing their petty grudge to the site, but it seemed to be mostly because they wanted dark comedy, not just darkness. Regardless, there was almost action to fix any of these problems for most of their history.

It was from about December 2010 onwards that they started attempting to sanitize the site somewhat. I don't know how much of it was spurred by legal pressures (they were getting a lot of DMCA requests and Girlvinyl claimed she was ordered by a judge to delete their article about Operation Payback, but who knows if it was true?), the fact that no advertisers with proper CPMs would touch them, or actual morality, but they did finally start deleting the plain old hate speech and banning the worst members. There was still a shadiness to a lot of how they went about things (for example, they deleted the page history of Aboriginal specifically to get rid of evidence the Australian government was going to use against an editor), but they did actually do something to try and fight back against some of the worst aspects of the site. This was really unpopular with the kiddies, so it escalated the in-fighting to an outright war until the site was finally deleted. The new people in charge of the main fork are completely, irredeemably awful and really do just want to ruin the internet for everybody.

I'll let everybody else decide how much (if any) of this information should be included in the article. I'd rather not involve myself with that bit of internet history any more. Larry Wumpus (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Heh, fair enough. Personally I find the new version less unspeakable than the old one - I find 4chanish assholeism less obnoxious than the actual malice of the LJ Drama crew who started ED - but YMMV - David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Drop in IQ
The article claims "If you go there expecting either, you deserve the drop in IQ — when RationalWiki's funspace just isn't lowbrow enough, ED will certainly satisfy your needs, or break your brain in half and make you regret ever going there.". I see there is no reference as of now. I've been visting Encyclopaedia Dramatica for quite some time now (I love the brutal honesty) and remember that I did my last IQ test some three years ago at a psychiatrist (it logged 143). Should I try talking to that psychiatrist to take that test again to either verify or falsify the claim above? (Antiphon) --95.91.219.101 (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * One person isn't a big enough sample size to verify or falsify anything. Come back when you've got like a hundred ED users ready to retake an IQ test, and a substantial control group who've never even heard of ED.  07:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

So it's basically one big Gamergate support site now...
I feel like that requires an update of sorts, if it at all matters. It still contains a ton of lies and other bullshit surrounding Zoe Quinn which anyone with half a brain has moved on from now since she didn't do any of the things she was accused of. I would do it, but I'm not a member and I don't want to subject myself to more of that stupid site and its junk.

They also have an article on you, call you the Conservapedia of Leftists and saying even "furfags" hate you. Not that you probably care what they think, but it's just something you could add. Honestly, why is this still going on? I'm so sick of running into it every other day. I want it to be okay to call myself a gamer again without associating myself with these pricks. Honestly, I'm so tired of them that at this point I want them to all just disappear. Hell, the site even accuses Quinn of sabotaging Game Jam! Which she didn't! Everyone who was a part of that reality show and wasn't on the crew ended up hating the whole experience and rightfully so! I don't understand how something can still be going on this long over a thing that has long been proven false!


 * Paying attention to what ED says is probably a waste of time - David Gerard (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The Term "Lolcow".
Before we begin, I should start off by saying that I was a regular ED reader and I have used this term. Numerous occasions

As EncyclopediaDramatica defines it,

 "A lol-cow (latin: Rideo Risi Risum Bos taurus) is a victim of a Flame War who can't help but be milked for lulz time and time again. They have a compulsive need to give up as many laughs as possible at their own expense despite themselves.

"A good Flame Warrior can turn even the most dignified poster into a lol-cow, dehumanizing them every step of the way. For some unknown reason, the lol-cow cannot break the cycle and regain their humanity."

In short, it refers to individuals on the internet who make fools of themselves on a regular basis.

I used this term to refer to a professional artist, Andrew Dobson, who has been considered such because he makes a fool out of himself on a regular basis due to the fact that he cannot be humble for one second.

http://tompreston.deviantart.com/

And when my topic in a discussion was swiftly removed, I was told not use the term by fellow user Ryulong.

 "Don't post giant sections sourced from ED to tell us some douchebag who made his fame making fun of a cartoonist no one likes anyway sides with Gamergate (it also helps if you don't use "lolcow" and compare him to CWC). But if you have to know, Castaigne thought it was pointless." —Ryūlóng

Is this term considered extremely offensive by now compared to when it was mildly offensive back in the day? To me, I just consider it calling a spade a spade, and not so much harassment. Whether applied to the likes of TheAmazingAtheist, JenniferDianeReitz, or even David "Daveykins Foxfire" Gonterman himself, a lolcow is the internet equivalent of the "village idiot" term. Thus, such a label is no different from "crank", "wingnut", or even "insufferable asshole" because like with those three terms, it used to indicate an idiot, buffoon, or just plain unsavory individual, and thus, someone who is not credible, or in the case of more redeemable lolcows or part time lolcows, not completely credible. I feel a term is only harassment when it steps out of boundaries of criticism of moral character and logical framework, and jumps into the nether regions of hate speech commentary on race, gender, and sex. On the other hand, I have a feeling that this site might have grown a knee jerk reaction to Encyclopedia Dramatica over the years since this one page was established. There is an unconfirmed potential possibility that RationalWiki considers us "EDiots" "stalkerish" and amoral. Is this true Rational Wiki? Are we evil in your eyes? I didn't see it this way, since I saw "us trolls" rather as "black knights" as opposed to regular, admirable if not misguided "white knights" of the internet. While our documentation and humorous commentary could be excessive(for instance, we turned Christian Weston Chandler's life into a three ring circus), it was a form of satire, and tough love in an age where no one was expected to be held accountable for their actions(after all, someone had stand up to crappy art by delusional 14 year olds, and we did exactly just that). My sentiments regarding the matter being that, "yes, we ruined that 30 year old manchild's life, but it's his own damn fault for being a racist, sexist slob who gave out tmi". In my eyes, I could see an EDiot, and a Lab Rat getting along just fine if not going their separate ways. However, if the majority of this site disagrees with my sentiments, and indeed wholesale condemns ED and it's ilk, subculture, and terminology. I can suggest perhaps maybe making a page on this term, documenting it's usage and origin, and decrying the methodology of Encyclopedia Dramatica on this page, as I use the revelation to take a break from the internet, take a good long look in the mirror, and reevaluate my life and my ideals. &mdash; Unsigned, by: RakortheTerrible / talk / contribs 15:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What is your obsession with Tom Preston?—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 04:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The meaning hasn't changed - but Ryulong is our resident lolcow (previously Wikipedia's, before they b& him) so he takes it personally. We'd ban him too if his milk weren't so tasty. Mooo for me cowdragon, mooooo ;) 177.154.139.196 (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * He'll moo for you more on GG related articles and talk pages.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what the term "lolcow" means and I don't think it's important enough to add to the ED article. But then I only have a passing knowledge of Chanology or just general Channer culture to keep up with the latest meme circlejerk they manage to produce. Withoutaname (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well Ryulong, I wouldn't consider myself obsessed with Tom Preston, I was just name dropping him for relevance so that everyone is up to date and knows what I am talking about. In order to understand the gimmick of "Evil Tom Preston", you have to understand Regular Tom Preston. If there is any lolcow that I am obsessed with though, it is Chris Chan hands down, because no one on the internet is more pathetic and detestable than him. You can seriously get lost browsing sonichu.com, but I don't recommend it too much since you can ruin your life reading about how this guy ruined his life and continues to ruin his life. Also, Ryulong, if the poster under you is correct in his statement, I ask you as a die hard ED part time contributor and reader to not take it personally. First remember, ED insults everyone and everything, nothing is sacred, we are iconoclausts to the core. It is only fair that way. Plus most of the time we just kid, and are just pulling your tail. The one true stance we have is a stance against "unwarranted self importance" which is a leading cause of lolcows. Second, being a lolcow is not in and of itself an irredeemable tag. Just because you might happen to be a lolcow yourself does not mean you are equal to Chris Chan. Some otherwise respectable people were considered lolcows at one point or another. For instance Spoony of TheSpoonyExperiment has an "Epic Lolcow" tag for his fits of bipolar rage towards fan and friend alike, in addition to unwarranted self importance, but he made a lot of people laugh with a genuinely great comedy show for nerds that changed everybody's opinion on Final Fantasy VIII. And Linkara? His videos are still watched to today, and his criticisms towards comics are vaild despite his lolcow tag for being a bad fanfiction writer in addition to a conservative feminist and a part time deep closet furry. Finally, ED is not out to get you, or anyone. In fact, ED is genuinely concerned with helping to improve your life. If you know how to read between the lines and filter out the apparent vitriol, you can gain some really good advice, including insights to human nature. Or even better, insights to bettering yourself and getting yourself a job and becoming self sufficient. I highly recommend this article here: [] it sure helped me, and I think it can help you too if you are at lolcow status. All it takes to improve is to shed pride. --RakortheTerrible (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

For the lulz, see any web discussion group with people gloating over the Patriots losing Super Bowl XLII (but not for very long
Can someone who knows something about the subject find a better way to write this line that doesn't rely on the result of a decade-old football game, especially considering lots of our readers are not necessarily fans of US-American sports.....Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to change the line considering I'm definitely no sports buff and I get the humorous inflection just fine. As with dumb sports arguers, apologists and provocateurs alike, "suethors", "deviantartlets", "Tumblrinas", "Plebits", furries and other ED are often people who blow things over proportion and get upset over extremely trivial things i.e. "Shit nobody cares about" as ED would put it. The inflection is that ED is like the guy at a sports arena who throws trigger words and phrases like "Cubs suck", "Tiger is a lying", "Choke X Team Choke!", or in the Patriots case "Tom Brady" and "Deflate Gate", to bait morons who take a sports game of all things too seriously. I can also add that the average Joe is more familiar with sports than 14 year olds obsessing over their version of Sonic The Hedgehog, so the sentence works in reaching out to people who are unfamiliar with ED and how it worked and the cultural climate behind it. It's a proper metaphor or analogy that uses something familiar to communicate to a person that was not there at the time. RakortheTerrible (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

they removed the porn ads
Since I left several complaints they removed them. PS2 (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They removed the only good part of the site? :( 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Savage. 16:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with 141, they removed a good part. ED removed the only nudes on their site that weren't really disgusting!  But why?  One person asking them wouldn't get them to remove it because few companies would advertise on ED and the site needs money.  Did you somehow convince their advertiser to stop doing business with ED? RaiderFan (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh look, ED is still altwhite trash
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Brexit

https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Nigel_Farage

04:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to stir up shit with trolls you fucking dipshit. Nobody appreciates the negative attention you bring. 🌭 (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ^ Lol--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC) 06:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a hypocrite? Who wrings his hands over your coop drama and then pokes at a nasty den of trolls days after the last coop ended? Fuzzy Cat potato is a hypocrite and drama queen. 🌭 (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm poking -- linking to dumb != getting involved in dumb, aye? 16:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @Anon I am calling you a hypocrite because I assume you are from ED where you guys bring negative attention on just about everyone yet you are complaining about someone doing that to you.
 * @Fuzzy No offense, but ED is meant to make fun of everyone in the most offensive and shocking way possible so idk why you are surprised by those articles. I am sure the editors there hold some racist/sexist/homophobic et al. views but the point of those articles isn't to reaffirm those beliefs but, rather, to piss off people who don't find them "politically correct".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC) 18:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there any chance you can unblock my main account?
Can you unblock michaeldsuarez? I spologize for fooling around. cheers.DougWellerisalunatic (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No.--JorisEnter (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The bizarre individual making all of these socks is [REDACTED] (google it) Richard Chepstow (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to dox more of you SJW freaks at Encylopedia Dramatica. Me and Mikemikev are teaming up against you anti-racist clowns. We have exposed [REDACTED] (Krom aka Schizophrenic) as completely nuts. LOL @ rationalwiki letting a real mental patient to be a sysop here.DougWellerisalunatic (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that Mikemikev is not teaming up with Oliver. Richard Chepstow (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "DougWellerisalunatic" isn't me. If you view the contribution history of the "DougWellerisalunatic" account, you can see that it's some idiot who has been trying to blame their antics on me. This isn't the first time he tried to impersonate me here: He tried it back in June, with his "JohnFuerstwithhispantsdown" account. He also operates the "Rationalwikilurker" account. He has been obsessed with me since May, when I decided to defend Rome Viharo and delete his ED articles. He's been running around the Internet, trying to attack and impersonate Rome Viharo, Mikemikev, and me, among others. ~The Real Michaeldsuarez&mdash; Unsigned, by: 108.62.18.189 / talk / contribs

Ads
I actually had to download an adblocker just so the shite was accessible without accidentally clicking on a hidden ad. —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 04:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I keep my adblocker on once the ad makers pull their shit together and stop making ads that 1) lag the loading times 2) fuck around with my mobile phone with phony messages saying my phone is "infecteed" and I need an app to remove it and 3) security problems that allow hackers to embed viruses in ads to install viruses on the computer. 05:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Adblock just makes the web look nicer. Bigljbigl, did you use adblock pro, or ublock? ClickerClock (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I used adguard. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgѕ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 15:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Which is the real encyclopedia Dramatica site?
Which is the real encyclopedia Dramatica site?

Theres several and I have forgotten which is the real.--FactsNotWikipedia (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * https://encyclopediadramatica.rs NSFW, as always. —Kazitor, pending 00:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

So, what's the reason behind the article being listed under Authoritarian Wingnuttery?
I'm wondering what is the reason that the article is listed under that category? I know Kiwi Farms is listed as such as its founder and runner is an alt-righter as well as a Trump and genocide supporter and white nationalist/supremacist (i.e. believes in the white genocide conspiracy), in addition to many of the forum members having alt-right/neo-Nazi political views and the website particularly targeting ethnic (i.e. hispanics, blacks, Jews), religious (i.e. Muslims, Jews) and sexual (i.e. gays, transgenders) minorities, as well as people with mental illnesses and disabilities, for harassment. SDSD (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't any more. --Gospatric (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the category because it was redundant here. Two, they'll claim parody. Since I am a right winger by your definition, I can understand this better. 15:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the article got re-added under the category, likely in response to the article about this website. SDSD (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Are You Guys Blocking ED Links Now?
I noticed on your furry page, you claimed that people who chanted the classic "anti-furry" meme: "KILL IT WITH FIRE!" were "bigots." I was trying to disprove that notion by citing all the different kinds of furries like Jay Naylor and JustinRPG who make up most of the Furry Fandom... And you were blocking my links! Did their affiliation with GamerGate really sour your mood so much, that you are going to play into lolcow victim complexes?RakortheTerrible1 (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC) You can't "disprove" it. They're bigots. They hate all furries (even children) simply for living their lives the way they want to. That is the definition of bigotry. They are bigots. In fact, why are you defending horrible people like them? They have no right to be fought for and should be stigmatized for their actions. If you're saying that because of these particular furries that all furries deserve hatred and stigma over actions the majority of the community won't even do, then you need serious help. Honestly. ED hates furries so much that it's even gotten to the point where they write articles against people who didn't even do anything wrong. Why? Because they're furries, the most stereotyped subculture. How is that fair? 2001:67C:2660:425:1B:0:0:8F (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that was certainly coherent. 94.1.158.3 (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ED links have always been removed from RW for pornography if I'm not mistaken.Skeptical (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought it was mainly the doxing, we still link to it where appropriate though (like this page). Christopher (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They're bashing and attacking people for living their life differently from theirs. That's the definition of a bigot. So yes, they are in fact bigots, without the quotation marks. The term anti-furry also doesn't belong in quotation marks either because it's somewhat factual being as the meme is most commonly used to threaten people who are specifically members of the furry community. That includes minors as well. Only a very cowardly person would go around attacking young children when they're grown adults.DonutBandit (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

How about adding this to the links?
It's the ED page about RW. It's "automatically identified as harmful". https://bit.ly/2OAkbSl 82.132.246.186 (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're mentioned on that page Mike: "Michael Coombs (aka Mikemikev), a neo-Nazi vandal who has for years created sockpuppets on RationalWiki to spam Holocaust denial and racism." Someone should probably expand your section.Punisher (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Their page on us
They hate us, a lot.Doublethink (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean... yeah? Expecting a positive page on ED about anyone other than mass murderers is asking a lot.  Asking it for another wiki is crazy talk.  Asking for a wiki that isn't loaded with nazis, I don't even know how you'd get it in your head that it's possible.  Not all of that is them being nazis.  Most of it is irony poisoned idiots. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also our article on them is out of date given they don't seem to have ads anymore. Nothing about all the times they have been taken down. It doesn't even mention Zaiger, or that time he was sued for 100k for an article there, and nothing about their strong affiliation with KiwiFarms. 20:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

What exactly makes ED an Alt-Right site?
I know that Kiwi Farms is listed under the alt-right category for reasons like the owner believing in the white genocide conspiracy and wanting genocide on migrants. Just out of curiosity, what makes ED as such. Then again, ED makes fun of everything, so take this with a large grain of salt.SDSD (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * From my observations, nothing specific. That said I'd assume that it's not much of a stretch to assume there's some crossover between their audiences. --Logos (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * -sorry for the late response- I think you should ask User:TheUmbilicalCordGuy about that since he was the one who (re-)added the page to the Authoritarian Wingnuttery category. SDSD (talk)  00:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not add the page to the Authoritarian wingnuttery category, the previous editor did. I added the categories for Ableism, Broflakes, Clogosphere, Internet hate sites, Internet kooks and Webshites. TheUmbilicalCordGuy (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Got busy so it took longer than I though. Yeah the person who added it to that category was an anonymous editor. Wonder what exactly makes ED a Brokflakes and Clogosphere article. Also Anti-LGBT Bigots is redundant with Homophobia and is supposed to refer to a person. SDSD (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Bull regarding ED's "freedom to insult"
I honestly think these guys are twisted and heartless. Encyclopedia Dramatica has been considered a bullying site and a hate group by a few outlets for several good reasons, some which I hate the most. They write articles against people who have clearly done nothing wrong, including one article made against a 7 year old child and another against a 14 year old, they bullied their victims to suicide and will either update their articles to mock the death of said victim or delete it if the police make mention of investigating this site, encourage the discrimination and murder of furries, what really made me mad is how demeaning and insulting they were towards the famous YouTube Pooper, Pie Pivot-O. He committed suicide and they made fun of the situation and insulted his death. They're truly messed up people. And they claim it's just satire? I'm sorry (no I'm not) but sending people after a single person over the internet to attack them, threaten them, draw pictures of them being killed, dox them, tell them to commit suicide, etc. is not "satire", it's harassment and also murder if that person actually does commit suicide. I'm honestly glad they're dying, but I think it should be taken a step further and they should be taken offline and banned from ever re-launching again. Just because their site belongs to a Ukrainian server doesn't actually mean it's protected by Ukrainian law. The founder of this site lives in the US and therefore must abide by US laws at all times. Sorry, Ukraine can't help you, buddy. Of course, it's not like they care anyway.

DonutBandit (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Conrad Rockenhaus
Conrad Rockenhaus is running ED, public Twitter convo from September 2019. There are public records that indicate he has been managing the website for a while, for example, right here. In 2018 he tried to use GoDaddy as a web host. John66 (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Nice catch. Rockenhaus is the owner of ED, I have seen conclusive documentation. They respond by saying he is only the hoster and not the owner because they will be facing upcoming lawsuits. 45.9.251.51 (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite
Entire article is a serious mess and needs to be re-written. May get round to this some time. John66 (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Defamation
This article actually contains defamatory information concerning me. You may say the truth is the absolute defense to defamation and I have a web link that says "X", however, you do not have my DD-214 or a copy of the Convening Authority's decision on the Court Martial. In the military justice system, the Convening Authority reviews the case and has the ultimate decision on accepting the decision and executing the sentence or, modifying it, or setting it aside.

He set mine aside because the crux of the case, that I was doing it for increased Veterans benefits, was proved to be wrong as the condition I was already being treated for, which was Epilepsy induced by a Traumatic Brain Injury, is already a 100% Service Connected Disability, quoting 38 CFR Book C, 4.124a:

Anyway, so I have an honorable discharge, so I wasn't discharged from the Navy in "disgrace" as this article says. Additionally, what's more amazing is the arrest you note in here in Denton, TX was actually thrown out because I was able to prove I was passed out due to having a seizure (you secrete certain enzymes in your blood after you have a seizure.)

Finally, my involvement with ED was limited to recovering their server and setting up hosting. I understand that the author of this text may have a problem with them, but that doesn't give him the right to defame me. I'm not sure what he's referring to about trying to use GoDaddy as ED's host in 2018, especially since GoDaddy doesn't offer Dedicated Servers or Colocation, they are a Domain Name Registrar, so this kind of proves that this author's intent is kind of malicious. I am more than willing to send proof to a neutral third party, as I would rather this text be removed with your cooperation instead of having to resort to further means. Thank You. Conradrock (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This ED website that you are hosting has ruined thousands of peoples lives, yet you come here complaining because your name has been tied to it? Your website glories serial killers, the holocaust and mass murderers and contains a lot of offensive (and probably illegal) imagery. You currently have an article at ED called "offended" it contains hundreds of violent images of animal abuse, rape, necrophilia, scat, self-mutilation, torture, and other depravity. So, are you actually happy you are hosting this website? Do you support animal abuse? There are photographs on your website of innocent cats, dogs and wolves being murdered or mutilated.


 * GoDaddy is a hosting provider, not just a domain registrar, they host many websites. You tried to use GoDaddy when one of your old hosting providers pulled the plug on your website. This is all public information. Many hosting providers have kicked you off because of your depraved "offended" article which you seem to think is great. The official ED Twitter released a statement last week Conrad Rockenhaus "hosts us through his hosting company". And another recent statement that they are moving to your hosting company GreyPonyIT. Your involvement with ED is neck deep. You are practically running the entire thing, lol. All links on our article are public information. None of it is being removed. John66 (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems you have also been done for forgery John66 (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to link a copy of your DD-214 so that we can review it? 18:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * According to this public information at the official U.S. Navy website


 * Are you saying the above is not true Conrad? It not "defamation" to quote the official U.S. Navy website about your activities. John66 (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The Conrad account above is a clever impersonation. ED trolls are impersonating me. Please ignore that account. I couldn't care less about this website. Conrad Rock (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have removed the personal details about Conrad, they would be better on his own article. John66 (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Though it's tempting to bring up the hypocrisy between Encyclopedia Dramatica's history of defamation and how this alleged user from ED accuses us of defamation, I'd rather bring up more specific examples of their defamation and why comments by them shouldn't be trusted. Anyhow, while the first user's initial arguments seem somewhat convincing, the failure to provide sources (and a means to verify them, make sure they're not hoaxed) as compared to how we have sources from public websites. I also think the removal of personal information is a good move since it's not mandatory to supply it doubled on top of the risky sensitive information. 18:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

As the board stated (responses from Spud and David Gerard), personal details about Conrad Rockenhaus are completely inappropriate for this wiki for promoting a gossip culture we don't condone. Not to mention, it's not relevant to begin with aside from mud-slinging and promoting interwiki drama. That Encyclopedia Dramatic engages in gossip and defamation does not excuse how personal information was handled here. Do not readd the personal details about Conrad. 02:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't go looking for that kind of irrelevant dirt about other internet nobodies either. Don't upload any more hard to find non-public domain photos of those internet nobodies. RationalWiki should be about ideas, not about people. This is nt Encyclopaedia Dramatica or the Daily Mail and it definitely should not be a place for engaging in petty feuds with people you personally dislike. Spud (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't sweat it. We value your contributions to the wiki. Please don't be discouraged from contributing it. We as a community just don't want to get into big trouble over personal information we really don't need, especially when it comes to talking about how terrible Encyclopedia Dramatica is. 04:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't sweat it. We value your contributions to the wiki. Please don't be discouraged from contributing it. We as a community just don't want to get into big trouble over personal information we really don't need, especially when it comes to talking about how terrible Encyclopedia Dramatica is. 04:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Conrad was making fake legal threats. He was sent to jail this week, you shouldn't have given in to him and removed all that content. 194.34.132.140 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is that content relevant? 22:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

revert to pre-drama version
This is a sufficiently disastrous piece of shit that it's hit RMF board level discussion. I am most certainly not doing so as an official action - just an editor - but I've reverted to the version before we got the trolls coming in from ED to play and pump up the drama for lulz - David Gerard (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll try to keep a better eye on it.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * GrammarCommie then reverted, telling me "the board has spoken" when I'm on the fucking board - David Gerard (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll revert it back on the condition that the personal section stays out. 16:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * By all means. I'm not a mod, but this may warrant a page lock for a time - David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. I'll lock the page for 3.6 days, and we'll extend it as needed. 16:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * <3 - David Gerard (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't revert! The restored version had all the irrelevant personal stuff in it that brought about the drama in the first place. Spud (talk)
 * And I've now restored what is hopefully the post-drama version. Spud (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

White people.
ED never used to be this bad. I remember reading the article there on "white people" years ago. It didn't hold back on the slaughter. It's kinda like how I ask myself "why are all of PewDiePie's race jokes aimed at...minorities?" - basically, ED back in the day was more committed to trolling everyone and everything. There article on GamerGate for example is just pathetic - who's more likely to read that article, anti or pro gamergaters? I think we know who, and who it would be funnier to troll. And it ain't what it is right now, Chief. Sad times. --2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:C0AE:620D:F30D:E2C6 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It was literally never good, however - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * True. But at least there was room for trying once upon a time. It's now a bastion for a bunch of women/minority hating basement-dwelling chucklefucks. --2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:7CF7:2596:9388:722F (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I take it this happened after GamerGate - SDSD (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Conrad the admin of ED is in jail as of January 2020
Conrad Rockenhaus is in jail and ED is down 194.34.132.140 (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * https://twitter.com/EZPZisback/status/1218290962620960768 "Turns out he's not in jail for hacking something. That's just ANOTHER crime he committed at some other time. The indictment is still sealed." The media will probably cover this at some point. Wait for the sources. 192.145.127.21 (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)