Encylopedia Dramatica's Ryan Cleary Arrested, split from older ED topic Options

[Greaser]

Ryan has been arrested by Scotland Yard, working in conjunction with the FBI.

[Daniel Brandt]

Wikipedia should not consider The Daily Dot to be a reliable source. Only one staff writer is interested in ED.ch, and nearly all of the other stories she has done so far are lightweight and meme-infested. When she emailed me for her second ED.ch article, I smelled a set-up and did not respond.

It was a mistake for me to answer her questions for that first ED.ch article. She repeated a quote about me from Jimbo that is nearly six years old. Using that old defamatory quote was probably a back-handed attempt to get Wikipedia's approval. All it proves is that Jimbo misrepresented his association with me, because to this day I have never, ever had a conversation with him. And the comments under her second article include a "well done" from Garrett, a "good read" from Edgeworth E. Euler, and a "very informative" from Zaiger — the three top sysops on ED.ch.

This reporter has participated on ED.ch's IRC channel. Her comments there are different from the sort of comments I'd expect from a professional reporter.

So now there's a tin-foil hat on that picture of someone who is not me, that accompanies the ED.ch article about me. I appeal to any and all Wikipedia editors to delete my name from Wikipedia's article on Encyclopedia Dramatica. In fact, I think that entire article should be put up for deletion. The old ED is history, and the new ED is even more irresponsible than the old ED. Both are best forgotten.

[Detective]

In fact, I think that entire article should be put up for deletion. The old ED is history, and the new ED is even more irresponsible than the old ED. Both are best forgotten.

I can't see that these are remotely good reasons for deletion. After all, lots of stuff is history, from the Roman Empire to Ronald Reagan, and we've often complained on this site about WP recentism. If the new ED is irresponsible, that's scarcely a reason for deletion either, otherwise they'd have to delete the article about Wikipedia itself! The only issue relevant to WP is whether the site (old or new) is notable. I can't see many people agreeing that the old one isn't notable enough, and the longer the new one is around, the more notable it will get.

[Forward!]

In fact, I think that entire article should be put up for deletion. The old ED is history, and the new ED is even more irresponsible than the old ED. Both are best forgotten.

I can't see that these are remotely good reasons for deletion. After all, lots of stuff is history, from the Roman Empire to Ronald Reagan, and we've often complained on this site about WP recentism. If the new ED is irresponsible, that's scarcely a reason for deletion either, otherwise they'd have to delete the article about Wikipedia itself! The only issue relevant to WP is whether the site (old or new) is notable. I can't see many people agreeing that the old one isn't notable enough, and the longer the new one is around, the more notable it will get.

True, but MDS is being a bit of a twat here. Hes obviously mentioning Brandt just to create drama and annoy Mr Brandt - to stir up a bit of drama. MDS: you are being, in my opinion, a bit of a twat.

Also: Since when was Brandt a 'quotable critic' anyway? He's not what id call an expert in ED - more an interested party.