Talk:Democratic Underground/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Vandalism 2 Ben Burch 3 Requested Comment 4 Renewed request for semi-protection 5 Reverting 6 membercount 7 Editing out the entire "Offshoots" section 8 Copy of discussion from User talk:Ben Burch 9 Update on Debate 10 What Is and Is Not Vandalism 11 Call for a Truce on the Edit War Regarding Links 12 my last revert 13 Considering adding an Andy Stephenson section... 14 Sorting out this link nonsense 15 consensus on links 15.1 People for Change 15.2 Progressive Independent 15.3 Conservative Underground 15.4 Neutral Underground 15.5 Democratic Warrior 15.6 Liberal Underground 15.7 Democrats .com 15.8 Mike Malloy Truthseeker's Forum 15.9 The Randi Rhodes Message Board 15.10 Bartcop Reader 15.11 The DU Panic Room 15.12 DUmmie FUnnies 15.13 General Discussion 16 Carl Sheeler 17 Recent edits by Revolución 18 People For Change GONE 19 Comment by St Just who also reverted the page back before that last archive point 20 results of link discussion 21 relationship between DU and FR 22 To everyone involved in this article / talk: 23 We are NOT going to have another edit war over this 24 Replacement for Dummie Funnies

Vandalism

Ben, or someone who admires his work, has removed the link to DU Funnies.

Can a responsible Wikipedian please remedy this situation?

72.82.108.46 00:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If Ben is not responsible for this, then I would like to know who is.

Why is he allowed to continually vandalize articles, make bad-faith afd nominations, and generally run amok?

Can someone please explain this to me?

Is this the sort of behavior that's to be expected of the average Wikipedia adminstrator?

72.82.108.46 00:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sock puppets from DU. They were either drawn here by direct request by Ben or by his posts on DU. I've asked once that the entry be semi-protected, but the admin who answered the request said there wasn't enough activity to warrant it. I can't imagine what would constitute enough activity, though. Jinxmchue 17:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Would you care to show me where I have posted about this discussion on DU? Or are you going to admit that was a lie just then by not providing that information? BenBurch 20:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm... I hear only crickets. BenBurch 03:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'll get right on that when Skinner opens up DU's search feature to non-donors and stops banning "freepers." Jinxmchue 03:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• In other words, you can't back up your slander? Tsk, Tsk. So Credible. BenBurch 04:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• What slander, Ben? I know for a fact that you have posted about Wiki on DU within the last week, and have done so before. You obviously did this to draw other DUers here and probably hoped they'd stay. [1] Looks like some did, judging by all the sock puppets/trolls who are editting/vandalizing the DU page in favor of your argument against the DUFU link. Tell you what, Ben. Why don't you use your influence over there and get these idiots to stop disrupting Wiki? I'd love to see how that thread would play out. Jinxmchue 07:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• You think I have any influence? Your opinion of my status is higher than mine, it seems. OK, though. I'll call out to the anonymous troll who is doing this and see if he will listen. Please revert the link now as the troll has been here and I don't want to violate WP:3RR. BenBurch 16:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

done [2] BenBurch 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It would appear to have worked so far. The vandal has not returned as yet. BenBurch 18:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Drat. It just made things worse. I was afraid of this, Jinxie. BenBurch 19:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• NSS. Typical DU behavior. Jinxmchue 14:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Check the history after my posting. Most of the vandals were on your side. BenBurch 15:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why would vandals from "my side" delete the DUFU link? Jinxmchue 21:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• You'll have to ask them. They deleted the WHOLE article and replaced it with a Hammer & Sickle. BenBurch 22:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, now that that is done, and I got the page protected, let us address your slander, Jinxie. You claim with no proof whatsoever that I trolled DU to bring people to this dispute, and unless you can magically manufacture some proof that does not exist, you owe me an apology. BenBurch 04:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have already done so, Burch. I showed that you posted a message on DU about your recent "fun" here. Jinxmchue 14:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, no, that was to a totally different article, and one I asked that they read, not edit. Your argument analyzes to Ignoratio elenchi. However, I know that you are not likely to ever address this issue honestly, and so I am dropping the matter. BenBurch 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter what article it was. You drew people here by posting about your activities here. And no, you didn't say "Don't edit." You said "Don't vote." HUGE difference, Burch. If you want to drop it to avoid embarrassment, that's fine. I'm tired of your antics anyway. Jinxmchue 21:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• It was another article. A totally different article. One that didn't even refer to this article. Again, wanton mendacity on your part, and a repeat of the Ignoratio elenchi argument. You are the one who ought to feel embarrassed here, or would if you had any scruples. BenBurch 22:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet another DU sock puppet/troll joins the fray. Imagine that... Jinxmchue 07:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ben Burch

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1486688

Thread locked, by the way.

I just wish the administrators of Wikipedia were as conscientious in their supervision of young, reckless Ben as the ones at DU seem to be.

72.82.108.46 00:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You should be glad they're not, since they're letting you get away with personal attack after personal attack all because you keep changing IP addresses.

Atlant 00:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about me, Atlant, I just scrape this stuff off my boots and keep on truckin'. BenBurch 00:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mr. IP Troll seems to be "a Legend in his own mind." It is as if the best part of him ran down his Mama's leg! Is this the same goon who was crowing about how he had "won" against Ben in the Ben_Burch page talk? I'd wager so. I think the only reason this lot follows old Ben around like they do is that they are jealous of him. I think they are trying to slander him sufficiently that he can no longer raise the money to keep his web site going. And if that is their goal, I'd say that they are doing rather the opposite. In fact, I think I have a few quid here that need to take a trip to America. Funny that Germany now seems to be free of Fascism, but the Nazis have taken up residence in the States? 62.3.232.36 01:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User contributions for 62.3.232.36

• 18:25, 26 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Democratic Underground (→Offshoots)
• 14:47, 26 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Democratic Underground (→Offshoots)
• 01:32, 25 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Democratic Underground (→Ben Burch)
• 19:26, 24 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Democratic Underground (Consensus seems to be that this link goes. Buh-Bye!)
• 17:01, 12 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Comparison of Internet forum software
• 22:48, 17 August 2005 (hist) (diff) Richard Huish College, Taunton
• 13:43, 3 August 2005 (hist) (diff) Paul Watson (disambiguation)
• 03:38, 25 July 2005 (hist) (diff) List of Internet forum software
• 09:16, 21 June 2005 (hist) (diff) ISO 9362 (corrected typo)

Who's the troll again? Who's the fascist Nazi again? Please go back to DU. Maybe you can come back in another seven and a half months and start this all over again. Jinxmchue 22:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Your Personal Attack here is uncalled-for and give lie to your claim to have adopted WP:CIVIL BenBurch 20:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Where is the personal attack, Ben? It certainly isn't against you, unless Mr. 62.3.232.36 is you, which probably would violate Wiki's rules. This person, whoever it is, contributed almost nothing before June 24, 2006, and has not contributed anything else after June 26. Their only contributions within that time were regarding the DUFU link. This person attacked another user as an "IP troll" and a "Nazi" when he himself was doing the exact same thing. I pointed this out. How is that a personal attack, Burch? Jinxmchue 20:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia policy calls upon us to defend OTHERS against personal attacks. And that is what I am doing. And you violated WP:CIVIL when you attacked that user. BenBurch 21:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• I never attacked him. I pointed out his hypocrisy. Tell me, Ben, where is your outrage against this person's attacks? Why am I the only one being (falsely) targeted? You're really stretching things, Burch, and I strongly suspect this is your way of personally attacking me while trying to appear to be following Wiki policies. Jinxmchue 05:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Never attacked him? You are kidding me, right? Even you cannot be so blinded to your own conduct as that. BenBurch 05:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, Ben. Please keep your non-NPOV comments (like the one you added to the DUFU link) out of Wiki articles. Whatever happened to your devotion to the guidelines here? Jinxmchue 14:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Is it not a minor blog? BenBurch 18:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested Comment

Saw the RFC. I have no strong feelings about this-- I had no idea DU existed half an hour ago. But having read over this page, I do have some thoughts:

1. IF you're an IP user / anonymous editor-- you probably should either register, or else save your breath. There's been so much trolling on this page that your edits are liable to be reverted on sight, your votes not counted, your comments ignored.

2. Ben Burch gets a gold star for being pretty dang civil, and for reverting vandalism that he agrees with! That's always hard to do, and I take my hat off when an editor can recognize a consensus doesn't exist, protect the status quo, AND lobby for change all at the same time. Similarly-- for shame to anyone who accused him of being the puppetmaster behind the IP editors without good evidence. Do Assume Good Faith, No Personal Attacks, etc.

3. It's probably a bad idea to try to recruit partisans into this debate, or to post about this debate on partisan message boards. To be sure, we want new wikipedians, but when you get people who care more about an issue than the project, they're probably doing more harm than good. The reason we're having this huge troll problem is probably due to advertising this debate on such sites. I could post examples, and I could name some names on this, but I won't. You know who you are.  :)

4. As to the actual issue of the link, I say: The DU Funnies Link Stays... For Now. (Keeping in mind of course that I'm nobody in particular, and I'm just using a strong declarative sentence for dramatic and comedic effect). But for now, I'd say keep the link. It's a tough call, because the link doesn't seem to be a particularly good one. It doesn't strike me as exceptionally notable, exceptionally influential, or even particularly well-written. As best as I can tell, it's just some random dude who got himself a blog-- nothing notable about him.

BUT-- any time you have an article on "Subject X", it's always good to have two or three external links of "Sites Critical of X". Obviously, sites criticising X are always going to be less notable than X itself. So, you have to cut the critics some slack-- it's a mathematical certainty that "Criticism of X" can't be as notable as "X" itself. So, even though it's not a good link, it's not a notable link, it's not a well-written link, I think on general principle, you always have to throw in like 2-3 criticism links into any good article, and so based just on that, sure.. let the link stay. It's just a one line link anyway-- it's not like it's a whole article. No massive harm done if it's a sucky link.

5. BUT-- in the future, you might want to give serious thought to swapping out DU Funnies and replacing it with a better link. Is DU Funnies REALLY one of the top 3 Anti-DU sites out there? Of all the people who don't like DU-- is DU Funnies really one of the best there is? IF you really think so, then keep it. So long as you don't have more than 3 anti-DU links, I think it's okay. But if you ever add more, then the "We should include 3 critical sites-- even if they're bad ones) rule no longer applies, and you should yank DU Funnies in favor of a site that's more notable or generally of a higher quality.

6. Until Semi-protection comes: Rage Against The Vandals. Keep up the fight.

Hope this helps! :) --Alecmconroy 09:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Good comments! Yes, that helps a lot! BenBurch 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I too saw this at the RfC board. First of all, I should note that when I was working on the William Rivers Pitt article, I had to revert several attempts to insert links to this DU Funnies site. I removed the links because the DU Funnies site had very little to do with Pitt and it just seemed like a blatant attempt at using Wikipedia to promote their website. This case is more complicated because the DU Funnies site does deal primarily (though admittedly not exclusively) with the Democratic Undergound site. I agree for the most part with Alecmconroy's assessment. However, you could certainly make a case for it being removed as well since it is just a minor blog and it doesn't deal exclusively with DU. Overall, I'd lean towards letting it stay though. Maximusveritas 14:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you! BenBurch 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, an external link should substantially extend information about the subject of the article; or put another way, it should give shape to the subject that is hard to convey in the article itself. It's not easy to decide whether a site that makes fun of the subject meets that criteria. Without looking at the site, if it's simply a regurgitation of DU comments that people find funny, I'd say drop the link. However, if it seeks to inform people about DU under a different light by using parody, it may be worth keeping. To be succinct, if it informs, keep it; if not, dump it. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 05:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments! BenBurch 15:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel it is my responsibility to preface this post by saying that I am a registered member at DU (as Che_Nuevara, surprisingly enough). However, I am neither a particularly active member nor a particularly avid one, nor do I have any particularly good standing in the community. I maintain that I am able to comment on this article objectively, as I identify my political standing as strongly divorced from that of DU, and use it primarily as a new/information ticker.

snip

Examples of personal attacks

Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to:

• Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.
• Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."
• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. (Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.)
• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
• Profanity directed against another contributor.
• Threats of legal action.
• Threats of violence, including death threats.
• Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages. May be direct or indirect.
• Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.
• Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly-accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion. Suggesting a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit a certain link, that contains the substance of an attack.

snip

WP:NPA is official policy! That means it is against the rules to levy personal attacks against other editors, period, no matter how much you disagree with them, no matter what you think of their opinions or edits! I won’t waste my time going through this talk page and pointing examples of the above, but suffice it to say a cursory examination reveals at least half the items on the above list.

That is not okay.

As is evident from the threads here, this is not the first time these editors have clashed with each other. I would strongly suggest that all editors involved in this battle avoid a) this page and b) each other for quite some time.

Wikipedia needs passionate, informed editors. What it doesn't need is partisans or soldiers. Anyone who can't edit a particular article or read a talk page without leaving inflammatory comments is strongly urged to avoid those pages, because they are liable to get themselves banned. And banned editors are useless, and not what Wikipedia needs.

My personal kudos go to User:JamesMLane, who was able to continue his extensive editing of the article and his discussion on the talk page while completely ignoring the flame war. That was the correct thing to do.

Ordinarily, when I notice a dispute like this, I like to "come out hugging" and encourage people to express their opinions calmly and clearly, so that we can all understand each other better. But I was truly startled by the level to which this knock-down, drag-out fight has degraded over something so unremarkable as an external link. I feel an overwhelming urge to nominate this for WP:LAME.

So people, I'm begging you to cut it out. Edit warring and personal attacks hurt everyone and generally depricate the quality of the encyclopedia.

On the link itself

I did my homework and actually took the time to find the first appearance of this not-nearly-as-important-as-it-should-be link. The link first appeared in this edit on 23 January, 2005, added by the anonymous IP User:64.118.110.66, calling his Blogspot journal "a popular conservative comic take". I followed this to its logical conclusion and found that adding the link to this page was the absolute sole contribution to the encyclopedia by this IP address. In all likelyhood, then, this link was added by the blog's owner himself.

Now, if that isn't vanity linking, then I don't know what is. It's easily enough to banish the link and the poster to WikiHell. I'm surprised it lasted a day -- we have people who patrol for these things.

It ought to be noted that a Google search using the term criticism of "democratic underground" returns dozens of his for www.littlegreenfootballers.com, and, as far as I can see, none for DUmmie FUnnies. A cursory review of LGF reveals that, although it is not specific to DU, the site has extensive commentary on DU and a better spellchecker than DUFU. A further Google search for dummie funnies returns obvious evidence that the author (who calls himself PJ-COMIX, claims tobe "a 30,000 year old reincarnated being from the 5th dimension" and whose "holiest of mantras" is "RAMA DAMA, I WANNA HOT MAMMA!!!" *caps his*) spams his journal on every webpage he can get his hands on.

The fact remains that this link has, somehow, been on Wikipedia for five months now.

Leave the link if it serves to calm down the edit warring: that should be the sole concern at this point. But I believe that the above shows that it really doesn't belong there. And anyone who actually cares about the quality of the article can make it their business to find a better link, which I think I just demonstrated shouldn't be that difficult.

I think everyone ought to go take a cold shower before they come back to this page.

- Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 12:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. I believe I shall heed your advice and go edit elsewhere. In fact I have a couple of research projects underway for just that. BenBurch 15:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to the RFC - link violates WP:EL, specifically "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard." As I consider this an obvious answer, I have removed the link. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. BenBurch 15:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• The DUmmie FUnnies blog is in large about the Democratic Underground, so obviously it falls within the exceptions clause. I simply do not see how anyone could argue otherwise. Jinxmchue 06:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• You can argue with any answer that you don't like until you are blue in the face, Jinxie, but you are not going to change the answer or the reality that none of these links pass WP:EL. BenBurch 06:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• This is what you are basing your "consensus" claims on? The comments of one person out of five? Whatever. I've already been through how DUFU relates to WP:EL with you before. I showed how the first 11 of the 12 guidelines in the Links to normally avoid section don't apply to DUFU at all, and the 12th guideline - specifically about blogs - provides an exception clause for "when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself," which DUFU passes. Or do you deny that DUFU is about or closely related to DU? Jinxmchue 06:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Nope, they all say the like was at best marginal. And the exception clause refers to an ARTICLE, not a whole website. And it needs to be a particularly high quality (that is where content is vetted) web site, and DUFU does not pass that test at all. Or if it does, show me the awards it has won? Or any critical notice from the press that covers blogs? (I won't hold my breath.) And NONE of these links are to sites closely related to DU, or to ARTICLES, or to sites of high quality. NONE of these links pass the bar, and the whole section has to go. BenBurch 06:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wrong, Ben. Four of the five say that the link should remain. (1) "As to the actual issue of the link, I say: The DU Funnies Link Stays... For Now. (Keeping in mind of course that I'm nobody in particular, and I'm just using a strong declarative sentence for dramatic and comedic effect). But for now, I'd say keep the link." (2) "Overall, I'd lean towards letting it stay though." (3) "However, if it seeks to inform people about DU under a different light by using parody, it may be worth keeping. To be succinct, if it informs, keep it..." (4) "Leave the link if it serves to calm down the edit warring: that should be the sole concern at this point." Only the last person made reference to WP:EL and did so ONLY in reference to the DUFU link. I have already addressed how WP:EL does not apply to DUFU in the "External Links" section of this page. As to your nitpicking about "article" vs. "website," that's a very dubious argument that smacks of hyper-literalism. As to your assertion that the links need to be of particularly high quality, I will simply point out that WP:EL uses the phrase "or if," not the phrase "and must." Awards and press coverage are not sole indicators of quality - not that quality must be a factor at all here. There are many quality websites that have not won awards or garnered attention in the press. Finally, all of the links in the section actually are about or are closely related to DU. People for Change and Progressive Independent are noted as having current and former DU members. Neutral Underground was started as a place where DU members could engage in discussions with non-progressives (who aren't allowed to post on DU). Conservative Underground obviously has a lot to do with DU as they have an entire forum devoted to DU - a forum which is the main draw to the website. And DUmmie FUnnies is by and large about DU - the name of the site itself stems from DU. Jinxmchue 07:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Renewed request for semi-protection

Attempt to ask nicely for vandalism to cease had the opposite effect. I have asked for semi-protection again. BenBurch 20:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that this page is now semi-protected. BenBurch 23:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

I consider it to be exceedingly rude to engage in wholesale reverts of good-faith changes without comment on talk pages. I suggest people who are consistantly readding the following liks:

• People for Change, Message board started and maintained by members of the Howard Dean campaign in '04 with many DU members and former ones as well, devoted to change within the Democratic Party and Democracy for America's agenda.
• Progressive Independent - Message board for Liberals and Progressives with many former DU members
• DUmmie FUnnies - Lampooning and criticism of DU

Justify such changes forthwith, paying specific attention to the strong consensus of the RFC respondees above. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review previous discussions where consensus has been reached on many of these links before whole-sale blanking?--RWR8189 16:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your local consensus cannot override wikipedia policies or guildelines. WP:EL applies regardless of your consensus to ignore it. Wikipedia is not a battleground or politics discussion forum - I suggest those of you who wish to fight about politics go elsewhere. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately you do not have the power to unilaterally declare consensus on whether or not any of these links meet the WP:EL exceptions, that must be determined through discussion and consensus.--RWR8189 16:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Such consensus has been reached, except for those of you who have no goal other than to engage in political games in this article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Where pray tell, has this consensus been reached? Certainly not from the editors who commented after seeing the RFC, their comments leaned toward keep to no consensus on the status of the link. As I said earlier, you do not have the power to unilaterally declare consensus on any given issue.--RWR8189 17:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the paradox of links to blogs and forums not being allowed in an article that the subject of is itself a blog or forum. I wonder why hypocrite has not nominated the article for deletion... Crockspot 17:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard." This article is not about, or closely related to most of those random links. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, we have been attempting to hammer out a consensus here, in a civil manner, for quite some time. You have barged into the middle of it with your heavy handed deletions. I think you are angering both sides of this discussion. Crockspot 16:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no such hammering. Please point it out, or begin engaging in it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The hammering will be directed at you, my friend, if you keep up this childish deletion. Your edits will be reverted by myself, BenBurch, or any number of others. This page is semi-protected for a reason. Crockspot 17:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that was a TOTALLY over the line comment, and I mean TOTALLY. Threats of violence are not permitted on Wikipedia. BenBurch 18:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh please Ben, there was no threat. See comment a few below. Crockspot 19:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No fair reader could take that in any way except a threat of some sort; Either a threat that you will engage in a revert war with the other editor, or a threat of physical violence against the other editor. There is not a third option as I see it. So, you can pretend otherwise if you wish, but I read your real intentions loud and clear. BenBurch 20:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a third option, which is exactly how I meant it, in that several of us editors are going to hammer on him verbally, exactly as we did on you when you started on your crusade of deleting anything and everything conservative on Wiki. Read the entire thread of comments, you expletive deleted rassafrassa! Crockspot 21:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not take threats from rednames seriously, sorry. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Another elitist. I point you to exception 12 of WP:EL, when the link is about or related to the article. DUFU is all about the subject of this article, and CU's most active forum is related to and about the subject of this article, and contains a significant archive of posts that have been deleted from the DU website. Crockspot 17:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And now I am no longer a "redname". Do you take me seriously now? Or will you find another excuse? Crockspot 17:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think that linkspammed satirical blog is unquestionably relevent to the article, I would be shocked. You must realize it is of questionable relevence, quality and reliability, right? I do not take threats from editors who would not have their opinion taken seriously in policy discussions seriously. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to take you very seriously, since you accuse me of threats I have not made. If you are talking about the "hammering" comment, then you have no sense of context. You are being "hammered" by other editors here in the same way that we were "hammering" out a consensus. There is no threat there, real or implied.Crockspot 17:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no prolem with Hipocrite tagging sections of the article. If that satisfies him and will prevent any further wholesale deletion of the disputed section by him, then it satisfies me. Crockspot 17:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless the disputes are fixed by others, I will fix them. I eagerly await someone trying to fix the article instead of have a political slapfight over it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

membercount

You can remove the fact tags when you link the numbers either on this talk page or on the article propper. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have adjusted the member/post language at the top, but left your fact tags. Those numbers come from the website itself (they appear at the top of each page on the site), and are generated by the database software. I wasn't sure if that is sufficient to remove the fact tags. Now see, isn't is so much better to work together? Crockspot 17:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, according to the admins at DU, those numbers reflect all users who have ever registered at the site, whether they have been since banned, were sockpuppets, trolls, etc. So those numbers are inflated. That is why I changed the language of that section yesterday. A CU member ran a script at DU over several days, and determined that there were only a few thousand unique posters on the site during that period.Crockspot 17:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That claim will need verification. Get me a copy of said script and I will get a neutral third party to run it and write a blog entry on that we can refer to here. BenBurch 22:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do.Crockspot 22:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Terr was the CUer who did the count, but unfortunately he is now banned at CU. You are probably more likely to run across him at one of the other Underground sites than I am, so if you really are interested, ask him about it. Here are two links to his comments and results. http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1102146&postcount=10 , http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1264374&postcount=9 . It appears that his script counted all unarchived (last 20 pages) posters of each forum, but I don't think it combined those forums and cross matched posters. But it looks like somewhere north of 6000. Crockspot 23:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought you didn't ban folks over there? What did he do? Praise a Democrat? ;-) Anyway, I'll look into writing a script to do it, and give you a copy so your folks can replicate it. BenBurch 00:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

BadCat said he would write one also. I think that would be great confirmation to run them both for the same period of time. Crockspot 19:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ben, you know that that number ("a few thousand unique posters") is entirely reasonable. With ~72,000 accounts, I'd be astonished if they had even 10,000 unique posters during any given month or maybe even quarter.

Atlant 22:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am not disputing that in the slightest! And I wouldn't remove it were it included, but we ought to have some actual justification for any number. You know, 90% of all published numbers are made up, including that one... BenBurch 23:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

that was a joke just then BenBurch 23:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Link would only serve to clutter the article, it can be found here--RWR8189 17:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Any such information would need to be published by a WP:RS. This does not include unrelated adversarial message boards. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Links to sources NEVER clutter encyclopedia articles, because they can look like this; [3] BenBurch 17:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Hipocrite's last edit of the membercounts in the article. Well worded.Crockspot 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Several Sagan reverts ago, I inserted text which stated something like "of which nn,0000 are still active (not banned)". Naturally, that text isn't there any more. It's prettty easy to generate this number: just look at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user&saz=user_profiles and sum the numbers. RIght now, the number is 72,807 so 91,322 - 72,807 = 18,515 banned users. And yes, I'm sure the number of users who are active at any given point in time is far less, but of course that's not unique to DU ;-).

Atlant 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the current wording. Yesterday the part you refer to was removed, and replaced with something along the lines of "Almost 100,000 activists are members, each one working for the Democratic cause." Since I myself have registered there at least a dozen times, and I am certainly not working for the Democratic cause, I couldn't allow that bit of fluff to stand. But the current version is good. It objectively states the facts, and their source, without implying anything. Crockspot 18:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Crockpot - I am told that BadCat did his counting script? May we get a copy to post here and review the code? Then we can have a verifiable number. BenBurch 15:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing out the entire "Offshoots" section

The claim has been made by Ben Burch that there is a consensus that this section should be removed. I am asking for explicit proof of this alleged consensus in the form of citations before the section is removed again. I've read and re-read the "Requested Comments" section here and I see nothing addressing the entire "Offshoots" section at all. It's not even mentioned once. Jinxmchue 02:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• All the explicit proof you need is in the discussions above. BenBurch 05:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• So in other words, you can't cite explicit proof of this alleged consensus. As this is the case, please refrain from editting out the section again. Thank you. Jinxmchue 05:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• No, it's all there for you to read, I'm just not going to spoon-feed it to you. BenBurch 05:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Again, you obviously cannot cite explicit proof. I see four comments in the RfC section above[4] that amount to "leave the link" and one stating that blog links can be used if they are "about, or closely related to, the website itself." I see NOTHING that refers to the entire "Offshoots" section. Removing the section is not discussed anywhere on this page except here. Jinxmchue 06:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• There is absolutely no reason to remove the Offshoots section, which is both relevant and meets WP:EL. Keep VoiceOfReason 20:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Jinxmchue and VoiceOfReason. Strong Keep Crockspot 20:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that if BenBurch can't get his way, he will populate the section with every blog that springs to his mind. Very mature.Crockspot 05:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

BenBurch's edits were clearly made in bad faith. He is advocating the removal of the section, yet he is populating it with every blog that he can think of. I have reverted the page to a version previous to his bad faith edits. Grow up Ben Please conduct yourself maturely. Crockspot 05:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please refrain from personal attacks. But I agree that the edits were probably made in bad faith; on his talk page he announced his intention to add some 30-odd links to the Offshoots section. VoiceOfReason 05:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have revised my comment above, and have posted a warning regarding bad faith edits on BenBurch's talk page. Crockspot 05:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ben, you as much as admitted that your edits were in bad faith. Please knock it off. VoiceOfReason 05:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Having "crossover" membership does not make these boards "offshoots," Ben. Changes reverted. Jinxmchue 16:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Copy of discussion from User talk:Ben Burch

PS, I have reverted your changes. Crockspot 05:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Crockpot, not in bad faith at all! I am just keeping in the spirit of the section. If it must remain, then it ought to be as complete as possible as this in an encyclopedia. BenBurch 05:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Obviously this dispute will not be settled between us. I suggest we take this to an arbitration/mediation proceeding. I believe I have sufficient evidence to prove that you are not acting in good faith, and that you have issued a serious warning on my talk page as retaliation.Crockspot 06:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Feel free to call for an RFC first, as that is the first step in this process and mediation is for disputes involving only two editors. This does not. And yes, I put a serious warning in there. I'm betting if I looked at your little nest over at CU, you folks have been coordinating strategy here simply against my edits, in total violation of policy. Or am I guessing wrong? You are acting in the very most partisan and disgusting bad faith yourself in attempting to WP:OWN an article about a message board you despise. And it CLEARLY is payback for the AfD of Conservative Underground. That is absolutely clear to anybody. Having said that, I am totally willing to compromise. The section stays. The DUFU link stays. But also the other EQUALLY related offshoots stay too. Or do you factually dispute any one of them? Deal with the facts here, not the personalities. I'd like to see your argument against each and every one of the links I posted. BenBurch 06:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• You would be wrong on the coordination issue, and on retaliation for the CU AfD. I let the CU thing go, and I have refrained from commenting about your edits on other sites after I was warned about it, even though there was no coordination, just commenting. How exactly does the Randi Rhodes site or the Mike Malloy site relate to DU, other than crossover membership? CU has crossover membership with DU, but we also have archived DU posts that have been deleted from DU, and cannot be found elsewhere. Our DU forum is the most active forum on the site. DUFU is a site that specifically lampoons DU. If crossover membership alone is a criteria, then a link to the Automobile Association of America would also be appropriate, no? I believe you are taking a serious stretch at this. Your motivations clearly seem to be to bolster your argument for removal of the offshoots section. That would meet the definition of bad faith. Add to that your threats on other sites to get your wiki admin friend to ban other editors. Please, take a step back and look objectively at what you are doing. You may be in danger of getting yourself banned. I honestly would not be happy to see that happen. I thing you have made some positive contributions to WP (as have I, to a lesser extent). Sometimes you can be quite reasonable, but other times, I wonder what is going on with you.Crockspot 06:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• The Malloy board and the Randi Rhodes board are all basically refugees from DU much as the NU and PI boards are. DU came first and people got disgusted and stopped posting there and moved to RR and MM. They are totally appropriate. I accept that the section has to stay, if for no other reason that you intend to WP:OWN it. Given that, these links I have added are the ones I would expect to be there were the section complete. They are all boards where DU members in the DU Diaspora wound up. They all exist in relation to DU in an auxillary fashion, DU being still the 500# gorilla in the Liberal/Progressive world. And they all RECRUIT from DU given the opportunity. And topics banned at DU land on those boards to get thrashed out. A good example would be the Andy Stephenson affair which wound up largely on Malloy's board when DU would have none of it. Do I think this section ought to exist at all? Nope. But pragmatically, I cannot revert it forever given that you have organized to outnumber me. So I intend to make sure it at least lives up to what it ought to be. Unless you intend to extend your WP:OWNership to that as well. BenBurch 06:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• The webpages you are wanting to add to the "Offshoots" links section are related to DU, but they are not offshoots. To use the same example I used on your Talk page, Star Trek: TNG, Star Trek: DS9, Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Enterprise are all offshoots of the original Star Trek series. A show like Babylon 5 is related to the original Star Trek series, but it is not an offshoot. You are quite adept at tossing out (baseless) accusations of WP:OWN and vandalism, but are quite short on arguments that actually support your edits. Jinxmchue 03:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I see you decided to agree with me, Ben. Good. I hope this puts an end to the edit war over these links. Jinxmchue 04:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Update on Debate

So, what's the current debate about, exactly? --Alecmconroy 09:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• The current debate is about whether or not the "Offshoots" section of the external links belongs. I strongly suspect this debate is actually just a continuation of the debate over the "DUmmie FUnnies" link. Instead of targeting the one link, now people are targeting the whole section to get rid of one or two links they don't like. Jinxmchue 16:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What Is and Is Not Vandalism

Ben Burch has been handing out vandalism warnings to anyone and everyone who has removed his needless additions to the article's external links. I strongly suspect these warnings are being made in bad-faith. Even if they aren't, they are still wrong. According to Wikipedia:Vandalism:

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."

I have not acted in bad-faith in my edits on this page. I have made rational, intelligent, reasoned arguments in defense of my edits and have not made personal attacks of any shape or form (e.g. baseless accusations of vandalism).

I will politely ask Ben to stop making these accusations of vandalism against people who disagree with his ideological viewpoints. If he cannot, I will bring this misuse of the Wiki rules to the admins' attention. Jinxmchue 03:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• As noted in Ben's personal Talk page, I will not be pursuing anything further in this matter as a sign of my good faith. Jinxmchue 20:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Call for a Truce on the Edit War Regarding Links

I have no problem with the current edits by Ben regarding the external links with seperate sections for "Offshoots" and "Related Sites." I'm sure we're all tired of the constant back and forth and I propose that we put this whole thing to rest. Let's go into our 4th of July holiday on a high note. Please indicate below if you agree to this or not. Thanks. Jinxmchue 04:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That's all I ever wanted. Of course. BenBurch 05:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yay! "It's the time of the season for Wikilovin'" ! Good job, ya'll. --Alecmconroy 07:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be wise for everyone to leave the links section alone for a while. This is getting ridiculous.

Ben - if you don't honestly and fully believe that the link should be there, don't put it up. You said you disagree with DUFU being up, so I can only imagine that the PJ-Comix blog is not something you really wholeheartedly support. You've made your point about the link section, but now your constant addition of links is becoming disruptive.

This goes for everyone: Don't add content just because there's precedent for it. Saying things like "Do I think this section should exist at all? Nope." is a very good reason not to add content to that section. If anyone can't see why that's a clear violation of WP:POINT, then please take a very long time to think about it until you can.

On a related note, the currently disputed link (PJ Comix is an idiot) has two entries, each dated July of 2005. One of them simply states how stupid the author thinks PJ Comix is, and the other is a link to a blackalbinosheep video. There should be no discussion on this whatsoever. The link goes.

I would really like to see this issue get resolved without further administrator input, but that's not the direction it's going right now. I am, of course, available for discussion and critique if anyone would like to run something by someone who knows a bit about the subject of the article but isn't involved in the war.

Still here. Still tryin'. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 16:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I must agree. The "PJ comix is an idiot" is meaningless spam with no worthwhile content whatsoever. Even if the link contained content, it is tenuous as it is an offshoot off of an offshoot and IMHO represents bad faith by Ben to create disruption. I will however refrain from re-reverting as I'm a newbie to Wiki, but I think someone with more senority than I should take appropriate action to keep meaningless spam off the page. As an aside, Im a member of Democratic Underground, and I visit and post very often. Nonetheless I find PJ Comix humorous on occasion and quite relevant to DU's Wiki page. (If you cant laugh at yourself occasionally, then you take yourself to seriously IMO) .Dman727

I, too, agree that the "PJ Comix Is An Idiot" does not meet WP:EL. It is not about DU. Add to that the fact that there are only two posts and it hasn't even been updated in an entire year, and you've got a link that simply does not belong. I ended the edit war, Ben. Please don't start it up again with your typical garbage. Jinxmchue 22:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Jinx, please try to remain civil. It's understandable that you're frustrated, but labeling edits "garbage" sounds rather uncivil to me, and saying that it's "typical" of a user seems to me to be over the line. We all get frustrated, and sometimes we even get angry, but that's the time to walk away and to not comment, until comments can be made non-judgmentally and completely civilly. Thanks. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 22:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Che, I understand the need for civility, and I'm trying hard to comply with it myself, but it seems to me that this latest "offshoot" is plain evidence of bad faith on the part of the editor. He announced his intention on his talk page to flood this article with several dozen links, and he's been leaving Blatant Vandal warnings on the talk pages of every editor who's reverted his additions. Can nothing be done? VoiceOfReason 22:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In theory, there are things that can be done, but I think everyone would benefit from learning how to get out of a situation like this without blocking editors. But a perception that another user is disobeying the rules does not give anyone the right to disobey them back. Providing evidence of abusive or inappropriate edits, as you are doing, is completely within reason. Referring to a user's edits as "typical garbage" is not. I think the distinction there is clear -- it's not what is said, it's how it's said.

I've been trying to talk to Ben about this issue. If you really feel that getting an admin involved is necessary, then do so, but it must be done using polite and respectful language, as you (VoiceOfReason) have been doing all along, but as most of the other editors on this talk page have not been so diligently in keeping to.

My suggestion would be to not engage Ben for a couple of days while I continue to try and talk to him. If it doesn't get better, feel free to get an admin involved if you think that's the next appropriate step. I'm just trying to conduct damage control here, ending this thing in the least destructive way possible.

Thanks for your understanding. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 23:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I was frustrated that the edit war was in danger of starting up again and I reacted inappropriately. I take the comment back and offer my apologies to Ben and everyone else. Jinxmchue 02:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jinx :) It looks like its been quiet here for about a day and a half. I left a message for Ben, but I don't know if he got it. At any rate, with things calmed down a bit, we can all smile and get some real editing done. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 16:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

WOW. Just saw all of this. Had no idea my additional link had caused such a brouhaha. No, I don't want an edit war, I just thought I'd add a balancing link. Leave it out if you like! BenBurch 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yay. Another DU troll has joined the ranks of vandals. Jinxmchue 05:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

my last revert

My edit summary got cut off because a glitch in my browser. The edit summary SHOULD say, "One incident does not make them 'known' for something" - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 22:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering adding an Andy Stephenson section...

...dealing with the fundraising efforts for him at DU and DUers' reactions (enthusiastic, some, skeptical others) to his plight. I mean, the guy has a section on Free Republic, and he was a DUer. It seems to make sense that the instance should be described in as much detail in this article as it is on the FR page. Objections? If so, the Andy Stephenson section on FR should probably be deleted (I'll push for that over there if it comes to that), because it's far more relevant here than it is there. Gordongekko909 01:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No objection, but please wait a couple of weeks as this is the anniversary of his untimely death, and people are a bit upset just now. BenBurch 02:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

On top of that, there's a factual dispute template on the Andy Stephenson article itself, so I'll just let it get resolved over there before I start the section. Gordongekko909 02:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• I added that tag, as well as my justifications to the talk page. Since there already is an Andy Stephenson article, why not just add him to the notable users section, and wikilink his name? He is as notable as several of the people already on that list. Alternately, a very brief mention with a wikilink to the article. No sense duplicating content. Just a suggestion. Crockspot 05:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• That makes even more sense, and it's kind of what I did on the Free Republic page. I couldn't stick him in a "notable users" section because (as far as I know) he wasn't a Freeper; I left the link in the section it was for context reasons. 'course, if the dispute over FR's involvement in what happened to Mr. Stephenson gets resolved with FR having nothing to do with what ended up happening to him, then he should just be removed from the FR page altogether. Now if a certain anonymous vandal would just stop reverting the summary description and link to the Stephenson page on the FR page... Gordongekko909 01:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• I feel your pain. An anon would not let any of my edits stand on the Andy Stephenson page, so I gave up and just added the dispute tag and put my evidence on the talk page. Andy actually was a [www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?name=Andy_Stephenson member of FreeRepublic]. Crockspot 02:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wow. That zot took a long time. Gordongekko909 03:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorting out this link nonsense

Okay, it's all quiet on the Western Front for the last few days now. I think we've reached the point where we can calmly and civilly discuss this link business. This is what I suggest:

I would like to organize a consensus-gathering discussion. A sort of "Links for Deletion" process. Each link will be considered individually. A listing on this page will be made for each link, with the name, the URL, and a brief description. Everyone will give an opinion keep, remove, or neutral for each link with a justification. Votes without reasons will be ignored. Discussion of reasons and further comment, as well as changing of votes, of course, is perfectly fine. At the end of a given time period (let's say, five days), we'll try and establish a consensus.

If nobody has any objections, I would like to organize and close these debates. Like I've said above, I'm completely neutral on this article, other than that I think it ought to be good and proper. Likewise, I hope I've demonstrated myself to be level-headed enough to carry this out properly. If anyone objects to my doing this, please say so, but I really believe I can do this neutrally. Likewise, if anyone objects to my both leading the discussion and casting votes, say so: If any one person believes that I should not cast votes and also try and assess consensus, I will refrain from casting votes.

Please give your opinion on my idea. If there seems to be support for it, I'll organize and summarize the links and try and have them up as soon as support is registered.

Thanks. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 13:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I wish you more luck with that approach than I had. I tried literally that, and was called names. But, yes, I support trying it again. BenBurch 14:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I vote that you do organize and moderate such a process. Good luck. VoiceOfReason 15:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  Me vote do too. Crockspot 15:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

consensus on links

Thanks for agreeing to do this.

Okay, you all know how this works. Post to each link individually -- just knock the rest down so you have room to comment keep, remove, or neutral. See above for more.

It's barely Thursday local time (UTC +2) so I'll try and have this wrapped up by Monday evening / Tuesday morning, or before that if conversation has stagnated / consensus has been reached. A couple of things:

• Please remember to justify your votes, giving your own opinion.
• Opinions from Wikipedians not involved in this article currently are, of course, welcome, but I will take into consideration the user's history. IPs had better have good things to say. Similarly, if I think someone is trying to solicit votes from somewhere else, I'll keep that in mind at the end.
• This article has already been placed at RfC. If you want someone's opinion, ask them, but let's try to keep it off RfC for a second time.

When giving an opinion, keep in mind the following:

• The "Occasionally Accepted Links" segment of WP:EL are just that -- occasionally accepted. They can create an exception, but do not automatically.
• Part of WP:NPOV includes No Undue Weight.
• The purpose of external links in an article is to a) source and b) enrich the article.

Okay, here goes. If you see something on my summaries that is incorrect, please correct me. Also, I did not bother to register for anything, because the last thing I need is tons more spam. If you have a membership at any of these sites and thereby access to information I could not find, please post it.

Carl Sheeler

Is there some sort of controversy about Carl Sheeler's campaign that I am not aware of? The user 132.241.246.111‎ has removed his mention in the "DUer's running for office" section a couple of times, leaving only the edit summary "Evidence?". I have replaced it twice, this last time citing a link to Sheeler's campaign website. I left a note on the user's talk page, but judging from the lack of response to others, and a history of unsummarized and confusing edits, I don't really expect for the user to clear this up. Are there some charges of the campaign being a hoax that I don't know about? Does anyone else have any insight to add as to why this user is so adamant about deleting that line? Crockspot 12:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I posted on DU asking if he was a member and indeed he seems to be; [5]. His username is CarlSheeler4U and if he's a fake, he's a fake who has been pushing Carl Sheeler's campaign awfully hard. BenBurch 04:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I finally just realized what the editor's concern is, that Carl is not a member of DU. They removed the line again. I reverted, and just added a link to CarlSheeler4U's user profile, but it can only be viewed if someone is logged in to DU. The DU user certainly claims to be Carl Sheeler, and looking at the campaign site, and comparing the posts on DU, there is nothing posted by that user on DU that contradicts in any way the stances that Carl holds on his campaign site. (End Iraq war, impeach Bush, etc., etc.) I think the editor is concerned that being a member of DU will make Carl "look bad", but there is nothing inconsistent with his campaign, and the general views expressed on DU. (End Iraq war, impeach Bush, etc., etc.) Maybe the editor should be talking to Carl about his views? Crockspot 04:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ben, I am adding your link as a third citation in the article.Crockspot 04:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That was my take on the remover's concern too. A shame they didn't share that with us here... BenBurch 04:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Another edit, but this time they just changed the wording, which may be acceptable. I think it shouldn't be too hard to confirm with Carl himself. He is live blogging at DailyKos.[6] If anyone has a Kos account, can they ask him if he is really CarlSheeler4U on DU? That should remove any doubt. Crockspot 15:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Crockpot, you done good. I asked him and he is indeed the real person. BenBurch 19:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a link to that, so we can cite it in the article, and put this edit skirmish to rest? I'd like to get rid of the growing list of cites on that one sentence. Crockspot 19:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by Revolución

They seemed of dubious validity, so I reverted them... a rare attack on this page from the left rather than the right. Is a comment like "DUers don't do shit but sit at their PCs and hate on the Left" sufficient to override WP:AGF? VoiceOfReason 03:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me, VOR, DU is a very centrist forum, and that doesn't sit well with many on the Left. BenBurch 00:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Impenetrability! That's what I say! VoiceOfReason 19:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

People For Change GONE

Wow, I almost missed the links discussion and poll as I was taking a wikibreak. But I came over to let you all know that People For Change was hacked by criminals, who apparently thought they could get something of value by holding it for ransom, and that there were no backups of the forum, and it is being taken down. So, obviously its entry has to go now unless there was a good archive of it on archive.org, which I doubt as it does a poor job of archiving that sort of content. So, thats the news from Lake Woebegon. I'll consider my opinions on the links and come up with something to post tomorrow-ish. Hope you are all well. BenBurch 00:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's only gone temporarily. As noted by the Admin on the homepage, they expect to be back shortly. All their data has been routinely backed up; apparently they rely one something a little more professional than archive.org 65.172.235.22 04:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by St Just who also reverted the page back before that last archive point

the following is text removed by benburch, et al, restored in full. benburch, et al, is/are acting solely on behalf of the owners and business associates of democratic underground. a visit to the website, democraticunderground.com will confirm his close and daily ties to the moderators and operators of the site:

Jai4WKC08, cynatnite, SalmonChantedEvening, arnheim, HeeBGBz, astonamous, happydreams, dogman, hack89, rppper, Moody Bluz, nathan hale, TahitiNut, DemoGreen, TacticalPeek, AZDemDist6, hootinholler, Hanover_Fist, Vickers, GreatCaesarsGhost, Prisoner_Number_Six, Career Prole, tkmorris, DemoTex, Renegade Six, RobertSeattle, onestarnot, oneighty, landdaddy, slater71, UTUSN, MadMaddie, Jack Rabbit, tabasco, hwmnbn, BewilderedCitizen, jokerman93, LIBERALNAVYVET, Earth_First, genie_weenie, oneold1-4u, Dees, BrotherBuzz, Bigmack, Tierra_y_Libertad, bpilgrim, lldu, alfredo, Kerry fan, meatloaf, ismnotwasm, TX-RAT, Chef, tabasco, madokie, Nickster, TomInTib, paineinthearse, Ron_Green, Uncle Joe, benddem, fknobbit, MrsGrumpy, jschurchin

thanks go to one current and one past moderator at democratic underground for providing me this list. according to them, each one on this list has been cautioned by site owner, david allen one time or more about being too obvious in their uh, fascist leanings. no threats about being banned were involved, just friendly warnings to the effect of being a bit more circumspect in their future posts. gotta keep the dough rolling in, dontcha know, and man do these people love to give. average amount of their donations were about one hundred dollars a quarter, with the largest donations around 1,000 dollars a quarter. one third of the donars on the list admitted in emails to du staff that they were regular and welcomed posters at 'arch-nemisis' site, free republic. again, thanks go to those two du mods who were kind and honest enough to provide these details of david allen's malfeasant mistreatment of his more naive members (they would be the progressive and true democrats, there- their avereage donations are around 5 and ten dollars a month, if that). and those du mods' names are...now, wouldn't you like to know?St just 20:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I re-added this comment. It is inappropriate to vandalize a talk page, St Just. BenBurch 21:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Now... What the heck are you talking about? I have no business or other ties with David Allen (aka Skinner) other than being a user of and donor to his site, and somebody who is working towards the same goal as he is. I have no privilege on DU whatsoever, and I think I get on their nerves fairly often. BenBurch 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As for St just's concluding question: No, I wouldn't like to know. It doesn't matter. With or without the name of the source, the statement isn't verifiable by our standards. See WP:NOR. Therefore, I don't even need to consider the question whether this list would be a reasonable addition to the article if it were properly verified. JamesMLane t c 22:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition - It is likely purely BS since moderators do not know EVER what skinner IMs to users. Or how much ANYBODY donates. EVER. I was a moderator for two terms in the run-up to the '04 elections, and we simply did not have access to that information at all. Any "moderator" who says that he or she does have such data is jerking your chain, St Just. Your sources are leading you down the Primrose Path. BenBurch 00:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"I have no business or other ties with David Allen (aka Skinner) other than being a user of and donor to his site, and somebody who is working towards the same goal as he is." and so it begins, or continues.

like it or not, if you give money to a website, you have business ties to it, and who knows what other ties, before or after, your money donations may entail or explain. and, brevity isn’t the du-cultist’s long suit, as i can see from the amount of spam you’re posting, much to the detriment of wikipedia’s search for the facts regarding your waning website. that’s right, du, at least since my recent additions to the article, has suffered a downturn in new membership registrations, and that’s mainly due to the lack of new military families and vets signing up. if you read my prior postings to the discussion, you’d have seen that this group once comprised the second most influential member block registered at du- meaning they gave du’s owners money for the purpose of immunizing their posted contributions from deletion and themselves from banning- their donations also served to bolster their routine demands to the site’s owners to have members and their postings, ie., those who posted messages contrary to their interests, deleted and banned.

the most influential bloc of members at du is jewish, and there, i suppose, but don’t really know or care, it’ll remain for better or worse. why? because du is, and you’ll have to pardon my choice of words, here, a jew site, for, of, and by affluent jewish children of affluent jewish children. i, at this point shall admonish you and your contemporaries for turning your backs on the words of your grand and great-grandparents and/or their peers; which were; “never again, not to any people” and embracing, instead “anything for a buck, especially that terminal real estate scam called israel”. and if ethnocentrically produced poison were your only bag, then far be it for me to condemn your little kafeklatsch. but, it isn’t, is it? now, i consider myself a latent supporter of progressive jewish causes. but the cause of israel isn’t particularly progressive? not unless the slaughter of innocents by idf troops and armed missiles is progressive. so, why do you suppose du bills itself as a progressive venue while taking anti-progressive stances on israel and other issues (israel is one of those goals you share with david allen, yes?) and why is the term progressive used in it’s fundraising and donar solicitation efforts? and, why do true progressives (jew and goy, alike) stand a better chance of getting banned and/or their postings deleted than du’s right-wing members (jew and goy, alike)? and finally, do you think du is risking getting busted by the dc metro anti-fraud unit or it’s juridictional authority governing consumer fraud for taking donations from true progressives and then banning their use of the forums? i’m talking to them now. would you like to say hi?. and don’t bother with answering my questions. they are, considering that i’m addressing a du insider, rhetorical.

du has a long history of targeting already understandably nervous and guilt-ridden members of military families and past and active us military personel for donations. with a combination of fear-conducing and flattery-laden posts from mods and insiders, these potential members are offered a place- which comes at a price- where they can be themselves- as horrid as that is- without fear of the truth upsetting their pre-nuremburg views of the world and the individual troop’s role in it. after all, the owners and their coterie of ethnic loyalists love israel and routinely defend it’s murderous rampages through-out the middle east (they derive an editorial balance to their liking not necessarily by contributing posts, but rather through banning and deleting posts offensive to their philosophical and financial interests), ...and, ‘the troops’ certainly love the way the us military takes care of their every need, from cradle to grave, which engenders loyalty in the same way israel’s financial aid- actually, they’re kickbacks from the aid us taxpayers give to israel- to the american jewish lobby--- isn’t that the american jewish community as a whole or at least a large part?--- does to you and yours? du ought to be run out of town for this and this alone. but, again, no need for you to address these points.

the wikipedian community, at least those of it who act in good faith and wouldn’t dream of spamming this site the way you have, would like you to stop. that is your only concern at this time. you can go back to david allen and report no dice. wiki ain’t having any part of your’s and his efforts to shield du from the inevitable truth and, more pertinently, the proper authorities, ie., those dealing with on-line scams. and what is the truth? well, as far as du is concerned, it is this: du’s a rightwing jewish scam site, of, for, and by... pro-israel scammers. oh yeah, you can also tell david allen for me that if he gives back all the money he’s ripped off from true progressives, i will drop the action i’m contemplating against him in court. i’ve got at least 683 former duers in my class.

As well, i propose adding to the article the following text: democratic underground's primary mission is the promotion of a greater israel. shalom St just 05:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone, I hope that this user's contribs serve as proof enough that he has an axe to grind, and that it isn't really worth engaging him because you already know the kinds of answers you'll get. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 06:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

nonsense. i direct you to confine your remarks to the subject of the article or any component thereof. St just 15:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

results of link discussion

Unanimous consensus:

1. Democrats.com: remove
2. Mike Mallow Truthseeker's Forum: remove
3. The Randi Rhodes Message Board: remove
4. Bartcop Reader: remove

Overwhelming (but not unanimous) consensus:

(one dissenting voice)

1. Democratic Warrior: remove

Rough consensus:

(over 70% agreement)

1. People for Change: remove (see notes above)
2. Progressive Independent: remove

All of the above links have been removed, as they have been overwhelmingly demonstrated to fail to to fulfill the guideline WP:EL. Please do not add any of these links, or anything like them, to the article without leaving a good reason on this talk page.

No clear consensus:

1. Conservative Underground, Liberal Underground, Neutral Underground: Community as a whole leans towards remove (roughly 60% in each case), although both arguments have strong cases. The external links guideline is not specific enough, in my opinion, to make a decisive statement. Since these links predate the current discussion, my tendency would be to keep them.
2. DU Panic Room: Editors as a whole lean towards remove (with just over 55%). The one argument which I would have most liked to see in the discussion was not made: the fact that this site has no effective content. (In order to see any content on the site, you have to be registered; in order to register, you have to be allowed by the moderators; presumably, in order to be allowed by the moderators, you have to be a member of DU.) Thereby this site is of no particular interest to any non-member. My recommendation would be remove, with no prejudice against a mention of this forum in the "Forums" section of the article.
3. DUmmie FUnnies: Editors lean towards remove (with slightly over 60%). As I said before, I really don't think this link belongs here, as it opens up the door to all sorts of vanity link postings. I still disagree with linking this. However, I am going to err on the side of caution and recommend temporary keep, as this is the link that started all this nonsense, in an effort to stem further edit wars. I am, however, adding a comment to the page code stating that this site should be replaced with a more appropriate appropriate link as soon as one is found.

I hope this exercise has demonstrated some important things to all involved. Everyone should note that every link was voted as a majority removed; the only links kept are those which failed to present a clear consensus for removal.

Of course, remember, I'm only one guy, and not even an admin. But I hope we can all agree after this exercise that this is the proper carrying out of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

I'm going to remove the link disputed tag from this section. Even though there's no real consensus on the few links which are staying, I think this is the best possible arrangement for now.

Thanks again, everyone. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 12:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus so it should not be added, the only relevant link is to Freerepublic due to the rivalry and that is it.Flanker 19:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus therefore it should not be removed. Thank you for providing your opinion on which links are valid and which are not, but you do not unilaterally decide consensus. VoiceOfReason 19:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So if something completely unencyclopedic was added way before the poll took place, it should remain with just one dissention to remove? Clearly lack of consensus does not mean status quo, a better poll question would be if it asked if those links should be added to the article.Flanker 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

An attempt to reach consensus is not a "poll". If something completely unencyclopedic were added, there would probably be a consensus to remove... and as for "just one dissention", an attempt to reach consensus is not a quest for unanimous consent, either. If there were no consensus to remove, that would be an indication that it's arguable that the material in question was in fact encyclopedic. VoiceOfReason 21:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A lack of consensus means that we should follow our policies - namely WP:EL, which excludes links that do not provide a unique resources, contain factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, that are added to promote a site and blogs. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You're free to feel that way, but at least the edit war has stopped now. However, please try to remember to refer to WP:EL as what it is -- a guideline, and not a policy -- as this may confuse some users. - CheNuevara 12:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You or I might get away bending or even breaking guidelines for higher purposes or other guidelines (WP:IAR). Editors who have been POV-warring over this article will not find their breaking of guidelines in furtherance of their POV-war fruitful. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you there, Hipocrite. I also by no means expected everyone to agree with my decision, and the points you make are excellent and taken to heart. Let's agree to disagree? - CheNuevara 13:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that - and I found your explanation on that other page to be perfectly reasonable (though, of course, wrong). I don't intend to edit-war over the link (I'll pledge to abide by the WP:1rr here), but I really would like to hear a justification for including it that focuses on

1. It as a unique resource, as opposed to just like every-other-conservative-blog
2. The accuracy of the site generally
3. The quantity of origional research of the site
4. The propriaty of keeping a link that was first added to promote the site
5. The propriety of blogs as links

The extereme focus of people on it's relationship to the site as opposed to it's fitting with WP:EL led me to discount basically all of the statements but mine, BenBurch and 64.34.169.201s. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I thought it was, after the consensus discussion, a borderline case. I will say this: that WP:EL "Normally Avoided" #9 allows for exceptions in the case that the page is sufficiently related to the article; that I don't consider "commentary" and "original research" to be identical; and that the low number of sites specifically about DU makes it relatively unique. I'm not going to fight with you on this -- we clearly disagree, and I highly doubt that there is any way I will convince you of my decision, even given all the qualifications which were inherent in it. A site critical of DU would be very helpful in this article, as criticism of the site plays a role in the article. If you're convinced this link doesn't belong, you might be able to find a better one. I wouldn't oppose that in the slightest. - CheNuevara 13:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[7] is not just an ok WP:EL, but arguably a WP:RS even. [8] is a WP:RS. That took 2 minutes. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As an additional note - the borderline was between consensus delete and no consensus - not between keep and no consensus. I look forward to someone who has not pledged the 1rr replacing the link with one of the two that I provide above. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll gladly replace it myself now that you've provided us with that link! :) Although I can't promise someone won't add it back, despite what I said in my commentary. - CheNuevara 13:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

relationship between DU and FR

I think that this article should make more than just a cursory mention of Free Republic. I'm suggesting the following text be added, probably under "Ideology"

DU has a longstanding rivalry with the conservative website Free Republic. Significant cross-membership exists, as members of both sites (who often refer to each other as "Freepers" and "DUmmies", respectively) watch the competitors' message boards. Members frequently post or link to posts on the opposing message boards to point out what they consider incorrect or outrageous posts, or to keep watch on which polls are are influenced in the competitors' favor (see Influencing polls, above).

Some members argue against these practices, saying that they give the competitors an advantage by driving up the Alexa rating and Google PageRank of the competitors' site. Allegations are occasionally made that 'rabble-rousing' members from one forum post extreme or shocking bulletins on the other in order to made the competitors look overly radical or inappropriate, but these claims are not substantiable.

These are all things I've witnessed during my tenure at DU. If anyone feels that these are controversial and need to be sourced, it's probably possible, but I'm not a donor so I can't search the archives. But I think this information is relevant, and this is the best way I can think of to include it. Any thoughts? - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 14:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Looks good to me, Che. Minor grammatical correction:

Some members argue against these practices, saying that they give the competitors an advantage by driving up the Alexa rating and Google PageRank of the competitors' site.

This should be either ...of the competitor's site or ...of the competitors' sites. Probably the former. Also, in the section about 'rabble-rousing', maybe add a link to Trolling Other than that, I think this is a factual, relevant, and NPOV addition to the article.

If it hasn't been made clear, by the way, I want to thank you for your leadership during the external link controversy. It was a textbook example of how to calm an edit war and achieve consensus. VoiceOfReason 16:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to put in the text, because I can't see a real good reason to keep it out. If anyone disputes something about let, leave your opinion here and we'll figure it out :) - CheNuevara 20:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

To everyone involved in this article / talk:

☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺

We are NOT going to have another edit war over this

The majority (but not the supermajority) were in favor of removing the DUFU link. I personally gave it a keep pending a better (more accurate and 'respectable') link being found. A better link has been found by User:Hipocrite and has been inserted. In light of this, please make a good case for the DUFU link being re-added, or don't add it. We just got over an edit war. Let's not have another one. - CheNuevara 16:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this link is superior in any way to DUFU, it speaks to one incident in which the author was criticized by DU, and it happened several months ago. DUFU analyzes material from DU in real time, and is updated almost daily.

I tend to agree. The replacement doesnt seem superior and is in general non interesting and unnotable. The commentary on DU is FOUR months old, whereas DUFU is updated 3 to 5 times a week including this morning. If this particular link were involved in the consensus discussion from last week, I would have recommended that it be deleted. Frankly I think that most of the objection to DUFU is based on emotion objection of critisism masquarding as technical objections and is in general an extension of the mentality that eminates from DU in general. Review of contributions by some of the folks objecting shows a heavy left wing bias and imo is the only (true) basis for objection of this relevlant link. Dman727

There is no original research as the primary source for the material is threads at DU that are linked to in each DUFU article.

I also see no evidence that the owner of the blog is the person who inserted the link into this article to begin with, as shown by this post at FR: "No PR mastery on my part. I didn't even know the DUFUs were in Wikipedia until a few minutes ago when I checked out "DUmmie FUnnies" on Google."[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1346376/posts?page=44#44]--RWR8189 19:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the basic point is, both links stink. Can we pick one? - CheNuevara 20:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree with the opening statement of this section. I thought there was no clear consensus on DUFU, and Che decided that it was a temporary keep, until another link could be found. I disagree with that as well. If there is no clear consensus, it should be a keep, period. The new link is not an equivalent of DUFU. If you like the new link, add it as well. But it should not replace DUFU. That's just my opinion on the matter. I won't get into an edit war over it. Crockspot 20:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a slight majority, but not enough to call it consensus, so in a way, Crockspot, you are correct. Hipocrite, however, made a point of his disapproval of the link (which I said I didn't really support, but should be kept for balance) and suggested a new one instead. I thought that would also be an acceptable solution, but apparently it's not. So what do we do now? Do we replace both links, as there are users who support both? Or do we remove them both, as there are users who disapprove of both? Retrying for consensus this early will not get us anywhere we've not already gotten. Suggestions, anyone? - CheNuevara 20:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I do not believe that link is a suitable replacement. The consensus was that we find a better link and I support that. However I do not believe that commentary that was last updated four months ago is a better choice than commentary that is updated daily and including this morning. I believe that the hunt for a better link is still unfulfilled Dman727

Why should a blog get such treatment? (ie replacement or it stays) WP:RS says no blogs period, and I know WP:EL says that under exceptional circumstances could blogs be allowed, I am assuming they mean quality blogs like realclimate in the article about global warming. Not blogs that do not provide ANY insight into the subject at hand mainly DU. There is a connection but its only purpose is to highlight DU extremism which is not good enough, for a NPOV and quality encyclopedia.Flanker 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. But DU does get criticized. And so a link to some responsible criticism might be acceptable. I have posted my suggestion below, please have a look at it? BenBurch 05:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Replacement for Dummie Funnies

As it has been accepted that a better critical source that DUFU should be substituted, may I suggest http://www.acepilots.com/mt/category/moonbats/? BenBurch 00:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I don't see this as a better source, there are few comments and the focus seems to be a lot more general than DU. Nearly every time a DUFU is posted on FR it receives at least 100 comments and thousands of page views.

I also disagree that it is "accepted" that DUFU should be substituted--RWR8189 06:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree, but it's going to happen. Personally, I still want all the links of this sort gone as blogs and social networking sites are almost never acceptable links, but the consensus says that they stay. The same consensus that says that this gets replaced. So, buck up, neither one of us gets what we want here. BenBurch 07:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Violates WP:EL. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree. They ALL do. But we're stuck with them, so we need the highest quality ones we can find. BenBurch 15:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm coming in here late, but I'm going to put in my .02 cents, as a reader of wikipedia and a proud DUer.

This is a bad link not because it makes fun of DU but because it assumes that anyone who posts at DU is a "moonbat". It's pretty offensive to think that causes you consider important in your life make you a "moonbat" (a derogatory nickname) in other people's eyes.

If you disagree with DUers, that's fine. I don't have a problem with those who disagree with us. I have a problem with people that would call us a derogatory nickname and deride us because of differing viewpoints. "Anon" 2:46, 23 July 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.67.200.94 (talk • contribs)

It's fine that you take offense to the name, but it's not really a valid reason to oppose the link. Should the DU article not link to DU, just because DU users regularly call conservatives much worse things than "moonbats"? - CheNuevara 15:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 cents, I think DUmmie FUnnies should be kept in here because it is an attempt at humor, and it is in line with one of the WP rules, I can't remember which one it is, but I know it is compatible with wikipedia.Lan Di 18:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides, what harm is being done if DUmmie FUnnies is left in the article? It isn't hurting anyone, and it is just a website, it isn't like putting a gun to your head and forcing you to visit the DUmmie FUnnies website.Lan Di 16:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)