Talk:YTMND/Archive 3

Habbo Raid

Who feels like writing up an article on the Habbo Hotel raid? I certainly can't—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.110.117 (talk • contribs)

It's a non-notable event. —this is messedrocker (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree'd. Non Notable. This applies to most all fads, raids, memes or any other popular acts of the week. Please don't add the Habbo raid to the article, it will be removed. --KPWM_Spotter 21:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the two previous editors. Not only would it be non-notable, but it also has a relatively high chance of containing libelous material considering the context in which the events took place. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 21:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How exactly would it be libellous to say "folks from YTMND, 4chan, etc. raided Habbo"? Though, the section WOULD be notable if Habbo issued a statement and added limitations to registration. —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The libelous part would come if it was mentioned that the raid was partially an attempt to glorify 9/11 (Note that the original posters for the raid were an airplane crashing into a hotel) and also to glorify the recent death of Steve Irwin and revenge on Stingrays(There were frontpage stories today of the Irwin family condeming the apparent revenge-killings by the Autralian public of Stingrays). Maybe libelous isn't the best word to describe it...maybe more along the lines of promoting terrorism and ecological destruction. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 22:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The libel issue isn't what's important, as I don't consider libel a problem unless its an attack on individual Wikipedians. But the non-notability is DEFINITELY a reason not to have it. Although if the events can be verified in reliable secondary sources, it can be included within the main YTMND article. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

YTMND Wiki will have, if it doesn't already, an article on the raid. —this is messedrocker (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Having just checked, I can confirm that the YTMND Wiki has neither an article on the raid, nor on Habbo itself. As far as I am aware, the Wiki is based more around the happenings on YTMND itself.

Besides, wasn't this raid carried out mostly by 4chan? That was always how I saw it.--Dreaded Walrus 17:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Picard Song?

Why does The Picard Song redirect to this article? Crimson Shadow 22:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The Picard song is one of the well known "classic" fads at YTMND. While they did not create it, there is no better article to redirect to. The true creator (DarkMateria) would classify as NonNotable on it's own. --KPWM_Spotter 00:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

New newspaper reference to YTMND

Found a online Jewish newspaper article that talked about the telemarketer prank. Hope this is helpful. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894547287&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Notable YTMNDs

I think we need to be a little careful here. Per WP:EL we should not include external links to pages which violate copyright. Many YTMNDs do just that: the sound clips are often from commercial recordings and not covered by fair use as they are not being used to parody the original source (use to parody something else is not covered by fair use). There is an elegant solution, which is to link to the YTMND wiki article on the fad, which has the double benefit of avoiding links to copyvios and giving much more information about the fad than is appropriate here. Any notable YTMND will surely have an article on the YTMND wiki, so this seems to me to have no real dowside. Look at wiki.ytmnd.com/Picard_song and see what I mean. Guy 00:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Perhaps, if there are no objections, we should start a discussion as to which YTMNDs are notable?--Dreaded Walrus 00:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think we should go into a fit of copyright paranoia over something that is a different corporation's responsibility than YTMND Inc's. They seem to have an adequate level of responsibility: they have a designated agent and everything. Wikipedia can't honestly be blamed for copyright infringement on another website. However, linking to the YTMND wiki article does sound like an adequate compromise. —this is messedrocker (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, links to avoid: Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media.; also the following types of links are strongly discouraged: Sites that are violating a copyright. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States. Many YTMNDs do contain copyright violations, usually in the soundtrack. Many also require rich media. Linking to the YTMND Wiki avoids both problems while at the same time giving the YTMND community the opportunity to present additional context and information. What exactly is the problem here? Guy 12:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What problem? I simply said that I accepted the compromise but not the perfenander relating to why we need a compromise in the first place. The compromise works, though. —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only is there the copyvio situation, but many YTMNDs (including some of the more popular ones) nowadays also use a flash pre-loader, which loads both the image and the sound and plays them together. This, of course, goes against the section of the policy which you quoted. Perhaps what I would suggest would be a brief description of a YTMND (as opposed to just a straight list of popular ones) with a link to the corresponding YTMND Wiki article. --Dreaded Walrus 13:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. I am strongly opposed to bare lists of anything, so the brief description is also good. Guy 13:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. We can create the descriptions of very notable YTMNDs (read: mentioned by the media), cite said media, and link to the YTMND Wiki. —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So, which ones to pick then?StvnLunsford 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Picard obviously. Beyond that I don't know. Maybe some of the more original but very popular ones, such as Safety Not Guaranteed, NEDM, and PTKFGS? Oh, and great compromise BTW. (since there obviously is a consensus towards linking to SOMETHING externally) Sir Crazyswordsman 15:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, PTKFGS, Safety, etc., are good choices; maybe by adding some of these in we can get this to Good Article status. StvnLunsford 19:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with selecting a few good YTMNDs to mark as notable is that it introduces POV into the article. What might be a good YTMND to one person might be total crap to another. By introducing some POV into the article in this way, you might be damaging the article's chances at GA-class. I only see two YTMNDs that might get past NPOV, and that's the original YTMND since it started the site, and the Picard Song YTMND since it got major Web-blog attention, and maybe AOTS since it was on TV. I haven't seen much for other YTMNDs outside of the Meme community. Of course, I might be missing something. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 23:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I flagged myself for contradiction. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability and popularity aren't one in the same. One of the most notable sites is "Batman: Ualuealuealeuale" (not linking to it since I want Picard to beat it back) because it was the first to beat Picard Song in views, but it is simultaneously hated by many because 1. It wasn't found to be very funny and 2. It was "viewhacked." Sir Crazyswordsman 00:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we CAN use the inkdrinker part as one of the notable YTMNDs. It was a good guideline for a while... StvnLunsford 03:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Most people don't know who Inkdrinker is unless they see all the downvotes he's made, and he hasn't made many in a while. I honestly think KHAN!, Conan, and even Cosby should go in before Inky. Sir Crazyswordsman 21:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

My definition of "notable enough for the article" is that it has been mentioned in the media. It also wouldn't hurt if the YTMND had an entry on the YTMND Wiki, because even they have a notability standard (for having articles on whole fads, that is). I hope something comes of the discussion this time, because this is what... the third time discussing this? —this is messedrocker (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the YTMND Wiki, and you're right. They do have a classification of what the site considers its most popular fads. These include, direct from their Template:Fads :

• KHAN!, Barrel Roll, Picard Song, Stapler, Conan is..., Future Conan, NSMB, Nooo!, Sonic says, What is Love, Burger King, Ualuealuealeuale, Brian Peppers, ...has one weakness., O RLY, OMG, secret Nazi..., I Love Bell Peppers, CATCH THAT MAN!!!, Facial Expressions, "lol, internet", Safety Not Guaranteed, PTKFGS, Nintendo 64 kid, Bill Cosby, NEDM.

Problem is... there's just too many of them, even for quick one-liners. If you're going to do Notable YTMNDs, this list should get you started. And you can BJAODN my template. lol :P --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 04:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Out of those, here's what I think should be mentioned:

• KHAN!, since it was the first ever fad
• Picard, duh
• Brian Peppers, since it has an interesting history (mainly with the Allan Peppers letter)
• Ualuealuealeuale, mainly because it was the origin of viewhacking
• SNG because of its media attention
• PTKFGS, since it's really more than a fad
• Bill Cosby, since Cosby Bebop is probably the most popular site of all time now (most favorites and votes)
• NEDM maybe, if only becayse of its interesting history.

This should be a good maximum for which fads to cover. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

While those fads may be interesting, how does that establish their notability? And what's SNG? —this is messedrocker (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

SNG == Safety Not Guaranteed. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 20:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Just narrowing down the field to try and keep the coverage to a minimum. Sort out their favorite fads, see if there's any media coverage on those. If there is, note them. If not, ignore them. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 01:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I put the fads with media attention in bold. Sir Crazyswordsman 06:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Now they need their appropriate citations, and they should be good to go. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 04:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

How about we throw in the Lindsay Lohan doesn't change facial expressions YTMND since it started the war with eBaum's world? (I'd link it but Wikipedia won't let me) Crimson Shadow 12:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• The Lindsay Lohan YTMND is already referenced in the article as a result of that incident. If a list of "Notable YTMNDs" is added to the article, I don't see why it wouldn't fall into that list. My only concern is with a lack of media exposure of that YTMND, although I might have just not seen any. Have you seen any press articles or other documents outside of eBaum and YTMND that talk about this fad? --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 23:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Without a doubt the Jews did 9/11 YTMND deserves some notice, if only in the "Featured in other media" section as it was on a History Channel special, and was presented as something Hezbollah did.24.22.53.24 08:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

YTMND on Spam Blacklist

Is this really necessary? I was just attempting to expand on this article here with mention of http:// scientologyattack . ytmnd . com/, as it has had more than some attention directed at it from YTMND and subsequently across the immediate social internet extending from it. Given the size and scale of said film (small), it's quite a notable event in it's history as far as I'm concerned, yet I found myself unable to link. Yes, I can imagine rogue YTMNDers love to mess up wiki with such spam links, but wouldn't blacklisting ytmnsfw.com (which is NOT on the current blacklist) be safer, since YTMND itself has a fairly aggressive filtering proceedure for 'unsafe' (ie. racist or blatantly offensive) sites? Just my two cents, hope someone with blacklist-editing ability notices. AKismet 04:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. There is a discussion page on Meta, and on that page is a section for proposed removals. You're probably better off bringing up this point there.--Dreaded Walrus 05:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked into why YTMND.com is on the blacklist — it's because YTMNDs that are created are mostly copyvios that we ought to not link to. However, www.ytmnd.com and wiki.ytmnd.com are on the spam whitelist so we can still link to the official website, as well as link to the relevant article on YTMND wiki when we bring them up. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Mistake

The original yourthemannowdog.com did have sound - but you cannot hear the sound because the web archiver did not archive it. If you look at the source of the first yourethemannowdog.com you will notice that a WAV was embedded into the site. --J.P. 00:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the Wayback Machine doesn't archive sound. I took a look at the source code, and I didn't see any indication of sound files. I guess I didn't look hard enough. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 01:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to see it yourself you can look at line 17 in the HTML. --J.P. 22:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it after I took a second look at the code (the first time when I originally wrote that section I hadn't noticed any code indicating any sound files). ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Broken link

The first external link in the "Media exposure" section (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8366702/) is broken. It seems I have to report this fact in the talk page as seen in the edit history. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Then I suppose we stop linking to it...? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. When this happens, the easiest thing to do is check webarchive.org. The story was originally published by Reuters, so it can probably be found elsewhere, too. --- RockMFR 04:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Date??? =

This article refers to an episode or something happening on February 29th, 2006. What's wrong with this picture? 2006 was not a leap year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.188.147.38 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Fixed. It was vandalism from about 9 months ago. Amazing that nobody noticed that until now... --- RockMFR 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What should be done now

There hasn't seem to be any major development off this article for quite some time. However, I do not feel the article is totally perfect yet. What more should we do to improve the article? (Other than the Notable Creation bit; we all know about that and I don't want to have that conversation again.) ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a cleanup of the Media Exposure section, as suggested in the article itself, would be a good idea. I'd remove most of what's listed there and leave descriptions of the first article or two to mention the site and maybe the first contest (Attack of the Show). In my opinion, the article's in pretty good shape besides that. DiscordantNote 17:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I myself would like a bit about technical features/innovations on the site, like private messaging and crew. Or a section about the web pages itself. Sources, people! ★MESSEDROCKER★ 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem I think, is that its going to be hard to find those sources. I'll do some searching on digg and TechDirt, and of course Google some stuff, but I think anything on the technical features will be slim beyond Max's own blog updates. Also, I think we could get something done on the Notable Articles aspect if someone would put something up. Then we could see how it works and make changes as necessary.StvnLunsford 20:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

They're acceptable, for now. They're not Third Party but it's better than nothing. Also, we should migrate, in general, from using on-YTMND sources to using things like articles published about YTMND. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 21:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect Question

Why does "The Picard Song" redirect here? I was hoping to find information about the song, and not some passing mention of it in an unrelated article.

It should actually redirect to the Picard article, where there is some info about it. Also, the cabal hates YTMNDers, even those of us who contributed seriously to this project. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made a request to change the redirect. --- RockMFR 17:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sega

A few things that need to be clarified in the article, but I don't feel like changing right now:

• Letter specifically mentions one single YTMND, but cease and desist letter covers all the YTMNDs with similar material; explaining this in detail would be better than saying that the letter targetted the "that's no good" fad, as that is a bit of original research
• I believe the content in the specific YTMND in the letter is from both Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog and Sonic X (audio from the first, image from the latter)
• Article should say "on [date], Sega Europe sent..." rather than "on [date], Max revealed". --- RockMFR 20:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a section talking specifically about the legality of YTMND.com in general would do the article well. After all, the whole site really is nothing but copyright infringements and stolen music. Not exactly the most legal thing on earth. Bradibus 07:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Though fair use can be argued for a lot of YTMNDs. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 14:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the fair use argument for YTMND? Parody? That's what I would guess, but I'm not sure. An I'm a wikipedian, too! For shame. StvnLunsford 16:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if we can get YTMND's legal counsel (yes, they have one) to publish a document about the legality of YTMND content, then we can make use of that. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 16:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That should work. I think Max would be more than happy to have something up here saying that what they do is legal. StvnLunsford 18:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's legal beacues 1. it's parody and 2. the copyrighted clips used are usually about 10 seconds tops. --Sir Crazyswordsman 18:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion, but for the edification of any who should read it later, "fair use" of copyrighted material is never a "you have X and Y, so you're not infringing". It's always a matter which require adjudication based on the four pillars. I personally think it sounds like they have a good case, but ultimately, it comes down to what the courts rule, if it gets that far. -166.20.24.144 (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom Mabe

We need to add Tom Mabe to the article. He's *Cough* trying to sue Max for unauthorized use of... well just check out the website: http://www.ytmnd.com/news/?news_id=57 RedKlonoa 03:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Done and done! ~Kamekamekame 03:42, 2 February 2007

Um... if we didn't add Lee Kaplan, do we need this in here? Just sayin'.StvnLunsford 02:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to point out that the email is from a AOL account and could EASILY have been from absolutely anyone, the phone number included is also easily available to anyone who simply views the tom mabe website. I submit to you that if it actually was from Tom, he would have included a personal phone number or the phone number of one of his cronies, not the "Customer Service Phone" number that is plastered on his site. James g2 05:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As Stvn said above, we didn't do it for Lee Kaplan, because he isn't notable. Nor is Mabe. --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 09:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't really notable. Such an allegation needs a bit more than Max referencing an email from an AOL account (if it really was from an AOL account at all - it could be from anywhere). We should only include controversies in this article that are 1) non-trivial and 2) involve a party besides YTMND that is somehow notable. So, I'm going to go ahead and remove the Tom Mabe section entirely. --- RockMFR 23:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My name is James_G2, and I support this message...er decision to remove the Tom Mabe stuff. (until he actually sues atleast, he would be notable if he got ytmnd shut down or something along those lines). James g2 18:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Im with James_G2 on this one. THIS ARTICLE NEEDS MORE MUDKIPS 15:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not, for Tom Mabe won't be able to do so. Read the news page aforementionned on YTMND again. Max's statements are correct. --Delf 19:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Live Jasmin

Just wondering what happened to the section about the conflict with Live Jasmin. I remember all the commotion about the Shoe On Head fad. Why is the section gone? PaulNic 03:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Nobody ever came up with any sources. JuJube 03:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What the fuck? Noone ever came up with any sources? HOW ABOUT ALL THE LIVEJASMIN YTMNDS AND THE IRC LOGS?

Those do not constitute reliable sources. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 10:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

References

I noticed there is a long running sources problem with this article, I also found there are some articles which have not been used as sources in the article, here is a list of them. Google has picked up some blogs and comments on news though so make sure you don't accidentally source them.--The Negotiator 18:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as this is YTMND here (unlikely there are peer-reviewed journals writing about YTMND), citing a blog for a minor detail wouldn't be the end of the world. Of course, we should avoid using blogs nonetheless. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Max Goldberg

should there be more information about Max Goldberg? I do not know that Much about YTMN so I do not know if more information is needed, Just a Thought. Max 04:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is the article on YTMND, not Max Goldberg. A small amount of information would be decent I suppose, but be sure to back it up with reliable sources. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

YTMND sinking?

Max appears to have taken a rather depressing view of YTMND lately, due to the total lack of creativity on the part of the vast majority of the users (which was the original intent), childish behavior (including racism, spamming, etc.), and how only a small amount of people seem to be there to actually make enjoyable YTMNDs rather than just mess around and make inappropriate jokes. You can see how he's lashing out (quite righteously, in my honest opinion) [1], and he recently made the depressing allusion to the Titanic in his newest YTMND in "myrelationship.ytmnd.com/" (blacklisting prevents the hyperlink to this site). It appears that Max is ready to pull the plug, but it's just speculative at this point. Either way, could a note about this downturn be made somewhere in the article? --Blingice 07:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say probably not while it is just speculation. Of course, if it does go down, then that should obviously be mentioned. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 12:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Check the viewcounts for a decline. It definately seems on the way down to me. Darien Shields 09:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC) I'd be sad if the site went offline, but I'd definitely understand. While there's a slight chance that YTMND might become profitable with ads, Max seems genuinely distraught about the lewd nature of the site. I wouldn't fault him for quitting while he's ahead... so to speak. The mass meme morons will always have 4chan and SA.com. JuJube 10:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There are puppies and sparkles on the front page. I fear the worst. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 16:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

youarethemandognow.com

I recently noted that youarethemandognow.com is the page posted, but youarethemandognow.com. (with a '.' at the end) goes to another page. How is this possible?

Media exposure reference problem

I've just noticed that a lot of the stuff in the media exposure section is word-for-word the same as the YTMND media sightings page, the page which is being used to source this information. Going back in the history and checking archive.org [2], it is more than obvious that the YTMND media sightings page cannot be used as a reliable source for this information, as they are merely copying it from us (not vice versa).

It would be best to source this stuff with primary sources (e.g. reference the tv shows themselves). Of course, before doing this, it would be good if someone could double-check and make sure this information is factually correct (I'm sure there are videos around and the like).

In the end, most readers are going to just have to trust us on this stuff since it is very difficult for much of this to be verified, but I would rather us cite with primary sources and leave it up to the reader to check them out than to mislead them into thinking that the YTMND media sightings page is the source of this information. --- RockMFR 04:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Scholastic

Well, who wants to get crackin' on the recent threat of legal action on Scholastic's part over the Harry Potter 7 spoilers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.150.197.193 (talk • contribs).

So long as you can find reliable sources mentioning it, you could list them here, and someone could add it to the article for you, seeing as it's currently semi-protected. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

YTMND.com in the news section has the most reliable info that you're gonna get on it. If you don't care about the spoilers, then visit to get the info, however Max has set forth to being an ass, and thus posted all the book seven spoilers on the main page just to get back at Scholastic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.240.40.234 (talk • contribs).

Haha, the front page just showed me a Google ad for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Now, I'm not entirely clued up on WP:RS myself, but the news piece appears to be quite authoritative. If someone else wants to add this to the article, with this as a reference, I wouldn't revert them. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger from Blue Ball Machine

The article Blue Ball Machine was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 12 August 2007 with a consensus to merge the content into YTMND. If the merger is not completed promptly, Blue Ball Machine might be re-nominated for deletion.

I'd tend to disagree with any sort of merger. The only secondary source for Blue Ball Machine was this Wired article, which happens to list a number of YTMNDs. Right now, we do mention this and list the YTMNDs that were included in that article. I think that's the right amount of treatment to give this subject. --- RockMFR 16:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources.

This article has many secondary, reliable sources. Primary sources are perfectly fine as long as the subject is not overly NPOV or controversial, and especially fine when they are being used for direct quotation. As the tag itself states, "Alone, primary sources...", they are certainly not alone. The sources, as they stand, are fine, except maybe the Scientology claim, but given their history of legal action it's not really controversial or unbelievable at all. The section could just be removed, though. --Lucid 09:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, primary sources make up about half the sources being cited. Most of them aren't for direct quotation. MessedRocker (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

YTMND dead?

As of 4/1/08, when you visit the YTMND webpage, you encounter a page that says YTMND is about to be closed up. Is this genuine or some April's Fools prank?--Achillobator —Preceding comment was added at 10:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Likely a prank. JuJube (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• It is. According to the Easter Eggs page, Max decided to "shut down" YTMND, but the site is still running at full capacity, as usual. And note the April 1, 2004 lines; the site was established in April 30... Blake Gripling (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

However, if you view the source code, you see:
<!-- this isn't an april fools prank. seriously. -->
So it is unknown whether this is real or not. I guess we'll see in a day. --Xparasite9 (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Check the site, looks like they're closing up shop. Maybe it's an April Fool's Week prank or something... M.nelson (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• The site's OK now, it is indeed a prank; although the WP admins decided to fully lock the article for a while since some don't get what Max is doing... Blake Gripling (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• The forums were also closed during 1st April, but is open now again. Seems like it's indeed is a April prank, I would have expected the death notice to stay and the forums still closed if it wasn't.Ailure (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Unprotected now that the nature of the "shutdown" is clear. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 23:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in at this point and let you guys know the April 30 2004 starting date is incorrect. I thought of the idea for the site in mid March and had planned to get it up by April 1. I purchased the domain (with a registration date of April 1 2004) and had a single page that allowed the creation of YTMNDs by April 1st. It wasn't until around 5 days later that I created a functional login system and close friends began signing up. Around three weeks later (April 25 2004), the "picard song" YTMND was made and the site received a large influx of traffic. At any rate, I don't know what you would define as the date of "establishment", but the site was somewhat functional and first available to the public on April 1st 2004, albeit crippled and unknown at the time. Due to the obvious conflict of interest I've always managed to refrain from editing the article, but I figured one of you might like to update that bit. Cheers Macks (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

"Most YTMNDs are meant to expose or reflect the more inane facets of pop culture," -Is this NPOV? Or even really necessary? Qutorial (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Still as popular?

I've been out of the forum/YTMND loop lately. Can anyone tell me if the YTMND website, jokes and forums are still as popular as they were say in..2005-06? Thank you. Pithou (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's dead. -JohnnyLurg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.106.158 (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

NEDM

Just wondering should NEDM redirect to this page? After all what it stands for Not Even Doom Music does, what does anyone esle think? 82.148.70.2 (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of people have suggested this. None have been able to find a reliable source connects the letters "NEDM" or "Not Even Doom Music" to "We Interrupt This Program" or to YTMND. Every source that other editors have provided in the past has been either a blog, a forum, a publicly editable wiki, or something else that does not meet Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources. For this reason, "NEDM" has been deleted several times. What's your reliable source? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Your totally missing the point. The point is what NEDM stands for is protected from creation, while Not Even Doom Music redirects here, there still hasn't been explained why that is. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed NEDM from the disambiguation, the claim that NDEM is totally original research. People who like gory pictures does have scientific theories that they are diagnosis by Paraphilias. The reason why NEDM became popular, may have been, currently they are people who enjoy watching content that is relevant to tortures, abuse, rape and historical tortures mechanics.

However, (some or most sites) are afraid to censor this content, due to legal issues. e.g. because they are a lot of sufficient scientific evidence or any theories on this.

• Reason: If you censored this, people can you for not censoring Sexual Roleplay, which in considered a form of abuse.
• Problems: Although this may sound weird when Sexual Roleplay the partners are willing to participate. However, if think about circumcision, it is also considered an abuse for some non-religious people, since the child can't make their own decision.

Hence this conflicts with freedom of choice (religion).

Thus most sites try to remove some of content, but they try not to remove all of the content, unless a particular parties, companies, commission...etc ask them to do so.

Hence NEDM isn't an internet meme.

---

NEDM (most widely accepted definiton) From: Urban Dictionary

Definitions:

• NEDM is an acronym of Not Even Doom Music, to understand, there is a backstory.

Epistemology:

A video was posted upon the internet in which two guys take a cat and force it 
into a hamster cage. They then proceeded to douse the cat with a flammable 
fluid, and then set the cat alight. This caused an uproar on the forum it was 
posted upon and was deleted, and authorities were noted. The guys who made the 
video went to jail.


Later, someone who had a copy of the video posted it on the fad site YTMND, 
with the music from the very first level of action game DOOM playing in the 
background. This was mostly met with horror and condemnation, although a few 
individuals voted 5 stars on the YTMND, in favour of the site. After seeing 
this, an incensed YTMND member voted 1 (the lowest score) on the sites of 
everyone who voted 5. On the comments, they said that Not Even Doom Music 
justifies burning cats. This became a fad very quickly, where people created 
YTMNDs with pictures of cats and references to cats and fire. Each NEDM YTMND 
typically has a picture of Happy Cat (A happy grey cat) and the song We 
Interrupt This Program by Coburn.
Nothing justifies burning cats. NEDM.

YTMN NEDM Encyclopedia (Article, Info:[http://nedminvestigation.ytmnd.com/ NEDM: The Investigation]).

---

--75.154.186.241 (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We have an article about cruelty to animals, but none about this specific cruelty incident because the media haven't reported on it. Urban Dictionary is no more reliable than Everything2 or some random wiki. Find me a few reliable sources independent of YTMND that connect the letters "NEDM" to this incident, and I'll toss it in. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 03:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually don't place the NEDM epistemology, because I found this article, Cat-burning. Initially when I was writing this, I suspect cat-burning might be a form of cult or fetish-related. But through Google search (with variations) the only reliable sources are from YTMND wiki and Encyclopedia Dramatica, all others website copy or modify them to a degree.

So let just place the cat-burning in the See Also section. It would be unwise to write things on this cult since they aren't any scientific explanation on this. Though Zoosadism does have a research section, but they are only statistics. I think if we write these information without scientific, it would just cause more vandalism (hatred)

• for the ones who support Zoosadism
• people who have conflict of interest in the freedom of speech + religion

and I don't even know is YTMND all about the cult.

But if other conflict of interest show up in the talk page, future I suggest writing this as an example would be a more positive presentation. By the way I have no clue does (YTMND = cult) or not, so don't quote me on this. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

content.ytmnd.com

My school blocks it as "illegal activity". Why? If it's illegal, shouldn't that be mentioned? 128.146.46.2 (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That's probably something you need to take up with your school's network administrators and so on. If the site is actually deemed to be illegal, then there'll probably be a reliable source mentioning it, which is pretty much what matters when it comes to whether we mention it in the article or not. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nigga stole My Bike

Can anyone tell me why am I redirected here when I search for 'Nigga stole My Bike'? I was looking for source on this phrase, but I don't see anything related and I feel like I wasted 10mins of my life reading this article..

"Nigga Stole My Bike" is a meme involving a cut scene from Punch-Out!! for Nintendo Entertainment System that originated on Something Awful and spread to YTMND. I'm guessing that it used to be in the Wikipedia article, but it got cut from the article for lack of coverage in mainstream media sources. For future reference, if anything else got cut from this article, it's probably on YTMND's official wiki. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)