Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica/Archive2

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Current downtime

The site is currently down, although I am not sure how permanent this is. A few days ago their site header announced:

Encyclopedia Dramatica needs moar IRL moneys, like, fucking now. Disk space is pretty much screwed, so there may be problems loading. HALP PLZ!!! Visit Encyclopedia Dramatica:Support ED or join us in ED IRC for moar details and ways to pledge your fealty!

They probably are out of money, but they could well be back. I guess we'll see. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

ED is up again, although their image (and CSS) server appears to be dead. I am taking off the "dead" tags for now and classing it as "reanimated". --GreenReaper(talk) 06:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It is "down" the same way FChan is occasionally down; over-quota. The account is still active; it just can't receive connections until it gets more monies or until the next billing cycle. Cross-posted from the Duke Otterland talk, as it's applicable here. Leam 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Even the registration process is an IRC trial-by-fire."

Is this line necessary? It seems rather irrelevant, and I think it is more than a little inaccurate. Thoughts?-El, oh, el 08:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever registered an ED account in ED IRC? Leam 10:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
No, but I've made accounts for people on ED IRC ^^. The "official" account registration channel on IRC isn't what you'd call a trial-by-fire, btw. The only time people who are looking for an account are bullied, harassed or kb'd for fun is when they ask in the general discussion channel, which is the wrong place to look for an account nowadays. Therefore I think that the line is inaccurate-El, oh, el 14:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, it sounds like you're saying there's a separate channel for account creation. I've been on ED for awhile, and if that's the case, it must be buried deep; all the "IRC" pages I've ever come across redirect to #ed, therefore the implication I see is that it is the appropriate place to ask for an account. However, if I am mistaken and #ed is more for general chat, feel free to toss the line; I made the change to preserve the tone of the original paragraph (which admittedly, was crap) and it isn't all that NPOV. Leam 18:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
There's been a seperate channel for account creation requests (#accounts) for about a month. I was under the impression that this was common knowledge, but obviously no-one has bothered to update the relevant pages on ED to reflect this-El, oh, el 02:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I have a few friends who would like to know this. And hey, if you're feeling constructive, maybe you'd like to tackle the last paragraph I didn't.  :3 Leam 07:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and this one, too. Leam 07:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why not *shrugs*-El, oh, el 10:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lockdown mode notes...

This text is misleading...

"At present (May 2007) editing of articles may only be carried out by ED administrators and all other users are prevented from logging in."

The administrators aren't preventing anyone from logging in or editing articles -- the free space in /var is in the mere hundreds of kilobytes! There is literally no place to store session data. The site is in read-only mode until this is rectified, and not by choice. Leam 23:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Section ordering

Having the "Encyclopedia Dramatica and furs" section first seems a little odd, and in fact seems to be detrimental to the flow of the article. Can we shuffle it back to where it was?-El, oh, el 05:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this way it tells the reader first why is this relevant/related/connected with the furry fandom (see The Werelist, QI, Deviant Desires, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, and a few more I can't #@$&* find {murphy's Law],) before moving on to the context of what the site is. Just FYI Spirou 05:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I see, but the issue I have with this is: taking QI as an example, the reader is given a steady introduction to what the subject of the article is, before being informed of how it has impacted on the fandom. Here, there's no such opportunities for gaining some basic background knowledge of the site before diving into whatever issues the site has with furries, impact on the fandom etc. and it makes reading it more difficult than it has to be. Also, this ordering could be accidentally construed as POV - discussing how ED has had a rather negative impact on the fandom straight up doesn't seem impartial, to be honest - not saying that you're meaning to do anything like that, so please don't think of my criticism in that way :3-El, oh, el 06:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I haven't got to moving the QI article around (just minor cleaning and add logos,) shouldn't have added that one as an example. I see your point on the POV, but I think it's something that can be worked on in its next edits. No, criticism is fine if it keeps the article readable and informative =) Spirou 07:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I actually thought that QI was a good example of an article that gives sufficient background info before going into issues and impact within the fandom, so as to give the reader a better opportunity to understand the issues at hand :/-El, oh, el 09:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the QI seems to have more on the shown itself, instead to its relevance to furry (i.e. It could use a "to the point" trim.) But, after a couple discussions on section flow, I returned the section to its prior placement until a consensus on the proper formating is reached Spirou 12:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit torn on this one. I agree that the relevance to the community should be pointed out first, but that breaks the flow of the article in a way, because you have the introduction paragraph; it rather makes sense to continue talking about the topic at hand a bit before going into the relevance to the community. I think we should have the relevance to furries after the types of content, I guess. My writing instincts override my web design sense.  :3 Leam 02:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Who knows, maybe she is >=) ...Or is that Fondler? Spirou 07:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

references question...

should the form of the reference be formatted like:

<ref>[ Encyclopædia Dramatica's] copyright information]</ref>


<ref>[ Encyclopædia Dramatica's copyright information]</ref>

? i ask because google will index the link wrong with the former, but that appears to be the default. i changed it to the latter because otherwise, it looks like it's a link pointing ot ED, when it's really pointing to ED's copyright information. Leam 03:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Google should actually take the context into consideration - it picks up nearby words, although not as strongly. Personally I'd use the second, or "[URL Copyright information] - Encyclopædia Dramatica" (usually this format where the title of the page is the link is preferred). --GreenReaper(talk) 04:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

types of content and relationship to the fandom updated (draft)

plz feel free to edit to death in the usual fashion. but i think we actually have something good. Leam 05:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance...

But what the hell is the obsession WF has with ED? Why are these two always going at each other? It just seems idiotic, childish, and trite to me.

Look back at the early article; it was ass, full of misconceptions and outright lies, serving mostly as a vent page for the butthurt. It took a lot of changes to get to something that could be considered quality. Like it or not, the furry community and the internet trolls intersect, and if WikiFur is going to document everything, it needs to document ED. I'm just trying to make sure it does so fairly. Leam 20:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Why? Why are these two intertwined so much, though? It doesn't make any sense and it's hardly fair for either side, cause both just end up with plenty of negative exposure. Frankly, I don't see a huge reason for the article, except as maybe a footnote elsewhere. --IanKeith 04:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want to get into a discussion about why internet trolls exist that will take awhile, and is frankly beyond the scope of this discussion. It does exist, and we make up a notable part of the community, and since WikiFur documents pretty much everything having to do with that which is "furry," here the article is. It doesn't have the same (and often absurd and contradicting) notability standards that Wikipedia has. Exposure is only negative if either side is negatively affected, which frankly, I don't see. Leam 06:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I just don't understand why we get so worked up about ED. In fact , the only reason that furries are even targeted by them is because of the dramatic overreactions by some members of the fandom. it is this form of reaction that while considered reasonable by themselves is very entertaining for the people causing it. I know this because I have experienced both sides of it. RickyFox 20:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


I feel more discussion is in order, to avoid article protection. Leam 21:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

actually, nm now. Leam 00:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Privacy invasion for the sake of drama?

I don't think that link actually illustrates the re-insertion of private details for the sake of drama. As can be easily seen, that edit was a reversion of what was essentially a blanking, by an administrator using admin rollback. Whether it was reverted to provoke more drama is purely speculation (more likely, the admin just took a cursory glance and reverted what seemed to be vandalism) and as such shouldn't be included in the article-El, oh, el 01:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Leam 05:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Many" unnofficial forks?

I don't think so. The only one besides the .ch fork that I can think of is the wikia one, and that's been deleted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the only one. Equivamp 20:28, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

You mean the Lurkmore wiki? considering that had quite a bit of the ED articles were mirrored there. But i would not be surprised if someone DMCA it. Considering some people love to make fake DMCA for very stupid reasons. Tridragon 21:48, 12 June 2011 (EDT)
Either way, I don't feel that two constitutes "many". Scalesona.jpgEquivamp 22:06, 12 June 2011 (EDT)
Lurkmoaropedia now redirects to because they did not have the money to keep the site up after both ED's were hit with DDoS attacks. Meepsheep 12:02, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
There you go. Scalesona.jpgEquivamp 12:04, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
There is also Encyclopedia Erratica, however it only has about 300 articles and is completely inactive. I give it about two more months before it is pulled completely. Meepsheep 12:09, 18 June 2011 (EDT)


The reference section of this article need to be changed. considering they all redirect to oh internet now. Tridragon 17:59, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

Will do. 18:00, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
Fixed up a few of them. Would it be possible to replace all links to with 18:09, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
I think it is possible considering the current links to the old ED re dead and Ch. is now the official new ED. Though i do wonder who the mascot is now? Tridragon 18:57, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
We are keeping æ-tan as a semi-official mascot. It is made up mostly of the same users, so there aren't much differences. Also, should "Owner" be changed to Ryan? 19:08, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
I'm going to have to say yes to that considering i'm sure people are curious to who owns it now. Tridragon 19:16, 18 June 2011 (EDT)* – They're aren't any links to .com from the mainspace anymore. --Michaeldsuarez 10:45, 19 June 2011 (EDT)


The template got broken in the move, might need to be fixed?-El, oh, el 00:19, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

Done. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:42, 19 June 2011 (EDT)
Awesome, thanks-El, oh, el 01:11, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

Yes, hello. Here are some changes that need to be made to the infobox.

Owners: Garrett, E, Joepie91
Founder: Ryan
Admins: H64, Meepsheep, Zaiger, JuniusThaddeus, DocEvil, Thayo

The site history should also mention Ryan's arrest. Ms. S 01:21, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

It would be easy to do it yourself. Of course, Ryan's arrest had to do with LulzSec, not ED. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Equivamp (talkcontribs) 04:23, 17 July 2011.


ED doesn't use "the same liscense (sic) as WikiFur." ED's content isn't licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. The host dropped ED because it violated their AUP. If anything, the DMCA was just a wake-up call, since they apparently don't visit any of the websites they host unless someone calls their PR department. In addition, CloudFlare isn't a webhost. IIRC, Girlvinyl only DMCA'd her article and not the entire site. I'm not even sure if it's necessary to report every bit of downtime ED has. It's certainly important to us now, but would it mean anything years from now? I would like to suggest the use of citations in order to back any claim, but .ch doesn't receive much attention for some reason. --Michaeldsuarez 00:01, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

You're welcome to fix anything. If something is inaccurate, there's no need to start a discussion on it, just remove it. Equivamptalk 15:18, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Done. I also removed the section on ads. .com's ads were fake, since there weren't any advertisers who wanted to risked affiliating themselves with us. .com's ads were jokes; they were intentionally obscene and distracting. --Michaeldsuarez 17:51, 22 July 2011 (EDT)


This article is only serving as vanity for users. ED is dead and the last thing we need is another article on them. I think this page should be deleted, and the old one restored with a short "mirror" section. <o> 02:19, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

ED is run differently and by different people. 02:25, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
This page is just about some fan site that isn't going to last but a few more months. If someone were to create a WikiFur mirror, would it be WikiFur? No. That is the reason we don't need a page on <o> 02:29, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
>"...isn't going to last a few more months."
Willing to bet on that?
>"if someone were to create a mirror of WikiFur, would it be WikiFur?"
That just further argues that they are two different things that need two different articles. Equivamptalk 02:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I am certain it won't last a year. It only has about 1/6 of the user base and it's run by moronic kids who have no clue what the hell they are doing. And no, they don't need different articles. ED died and became Ohinternet, then some jackass decided to steal it. We do NOT need this article. <o> 02:41, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Actually, ED isn't dead. It's at a new domain. They've also been making deals with Girlvinyl, so the domain may be returned. And, simply because you have the ability to type ad hominem attacks does not make an article less valid. Equivamptalk 02:49, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I'd like to add that it is 4 months later and we are back to 100% of the active users and pageviews per month (60 million in August) we had as .com. -- 00:14, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

Do you have any proof of these "deals"? I don't think so. <o> 02:53, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

If you would like to visit ED's Thizzlehat Junction Center, IRC, or forums, you're more than welcome to. One instamce of a deal being made is that her article be removed so that she would stop false DCMA'ing. I also reccomend talking to a sysop, who would be involved and far more in-the-know than I. Regardless, the article stays. Equivamptalk 02:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I don't think I'll be sinking that low anytime soon. And who are you to decide if the article stays? I came here hoping an admin would review the content, and instead got a brat telling me to go to some stupid ED mirror rather than backing their arguements. <o> 03:03, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

You seem to only be here to cause drama. And, your ad hominems need to stop. If you're unwilling to get information, you've no place in a discussion about information. I don't know who you are, but you're being ridiculous. Please stop your drama-mongering, ED or LJ are the proper mediums for that; it's frowned upon here. Equivamptalk 03:07, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I came here to get an article we don't need taken down. Instead, I got "OH NO THIS SITE IS COOL, HERE GO LOOK". <o> 03:14, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I never said the site was cool, and I only refered you to places in which to find the information you'd asked for. Equivamptalk 03:17, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Assuming that information can be found there. If you're going to bring that into this, at least provide a source. <o> 03:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I did. Yoy refused to "sink that low", whatever that means. Equivamptalk 03:23, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

You directed me to the "Thizzlehat Junction Center", which I checked and has nothing about this at all. <o> 03:28, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Oh really? An entire section is devoted to discussion of that topic. I also provided two other sources in case you were unable to find it. Equivamptalk 03:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

It provides no real information, just calls for attacks. And no thank you, I don't think I'll be speaking to any of those losers. <o> 03:35, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

If you refuse to look at information given to you upon asking for it, you're beyond my help. Equivamptalk 03:38, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

You claimed that Girlvinyl would be handing over ED's domain. I see nothing of this. <o> 03:40, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I claimed nothing of the sort! I said it was a possibility, which is discussed on the TJC. Equivamptalk 03:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

"They've also been making deals with Girlvinyl, so the domain may be returned." Hmm... <o> 03:49, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

My point exactly. Equivamptalk 03:51, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Alright, I'm going to focus on why I made this topic, and I hope you will discuss that.

Back on topic

Reasons to delete:

  • Non-noteable to the fur community
  • The site is only a mirror

<o> 04:07, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

The site has a Portal for "furfaggotry", it's notable.

The site also has content that was not on old ED, furry articles included. Next excuse. Equivamptalk 04:11, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Just because there are a few new (abusive) articles doesn't mean we need a page about a website that is primarily made up of stolen content. <o> 04:16, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

It isn't stolen content, and it has probably close to 200 furry-related articles. Equivamptalk 04:19, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

We are not getting anywhere with you repeating yourself by posting the same things as above. You clearly do not wish to take this seriously, and thus do not belong here. This is why I wanted someone else involved in this. <o> 13:38, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

This whole thing wasn't serious. The reason no one else got involved is because they know this, but don't find you as humorous as I do. ^^ Equivamptalk 13:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

No. The reason nobody else was involved is because the admins here only care about page quantity. <o> 13:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

insulting admins=great way to get them involved Equivamptalk 14:04, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I'm sorry that the lack of admin attention to this site has killed it. No wonder the only people who edit are IPs making vanity articles. <o> 19:30, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Really? I see plenty of registered users in the RC. Equivamptalk 19:39, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Once again, they are only here to write articles on themselves. <o> 20:02, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I have no time for fools. Goodbye. Equivamptalk 20:09, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I also have no time for people like you. I will now wait for an admin to take action. <o> 21:33, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
You still waiting? ^_^ -- 00:06, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
That's Meepsheep. Equivamptalk 14:30, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

Latest edits

  • "The forums were also down for longer(?) after being hacked by "savetheinternet". "For longer" what?
  • "savetheinternet", user or , user savetheinternet in retaliation for (....?) his own site,". in retaliation for?,...
  • This incident is localized to Youtube. Don't fluff it up like it shook the whole of the culture.
  • If references are on's forums, it needs the posts to back it up, not a double loop back to the article's infobox's forum name

- Spirou 21:34, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

I have made some minor changes to help clarify. -Usar 00:32, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Critic Sites Inclusion

I kind of suck at anything beyond base edits, or I would do it myself, but as a continuation of the original ED, I believe this website should be added to the 'Critic Sites' category. While I enjoy ED, it would be impossible to argue that it isn't incredibly anti-furry, and considering the pure size and scope of it, it is definitely noteworthy. Insularis 20:47, 28 February 2012 (EST)

It's already in the "Critics" category. Equivamptalk 21:15, 28 February 2012 (EST)