Talk:EBaum's World

NOTE: New topics (headings) of discussion should be added to the bottom of the page please. In addition, please sign your comments. You can sign your comments by typing ~~~~ where you want the signature to appear.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions; Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue. During making any such changes, be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box. After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page. (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

Archives
– March 2006

"Features" and "Controversy" sections are redundant

It seems to me that the "Features" section is merely a summary of the "Controversy" section. Shouldn't it instead list some of the web site's regularly recurring features, and not simply present information that is presented later on in a condensed fashion? I suggest that for the time being the "Features" section be removed until it can be rewritten. --Impaciente 02:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just restored an older version of the Features section from a few weeks ago, before it had been overwritten with negativity. -- Bovineone 03:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Subheading as thief

Should we do this?

No, we should not. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. I removed the features section which contained nothing but "ebaumsworld steals from Newgrounds k?" and such. I know Eric Bauman is not very well liked by internet users but try to keep this artical neutral.

Neutral? Being a thief isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. He either stole it or he didn't. And in this case, HE DID. Vegetaman 05:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point, Vegetaman. As pointed out above, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, which means that both sides must be equally represented, with no bias. 207.216.10.130 08:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Biased Page?

This page seems to be biased towards the alleged fact that ebaums world is stealing. If someone could try and edit this page to be more unbiased and present both sides of the story equally it would be great. Floog 18:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Unbiased? You mean lie to make EBaum's World look better? The story is very clear. I don’t think there is some huge conspiracy going on between many internet forums to create animation, allow EBaum's to use it, and then claim it never happened. Redd Dragon 18:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not biased. I've looked it over, it only gives facts. Don't look at me if most of those facts point against it. --72.70.53.60 01:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

All of the stories of eBaums stealing are cited and true. Therefore, they should stay. --DarkAdonis255 13:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could make this show a bit more of their side, except for the fact that there are no fact that could be put up. I've even read this interview with Mr. Bauman. He says that he does steal, but it's the only way he can stay so popular. Although generally they dont go hunting for things anymore. The site can live off of uploads now, but they still will steal if they see something really good. They admit it themselves. PokeOnic (talk)17:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

More Theft Controversy

There's something new that Ebaum's World has stolen. Animator vs. Animation. This flash cartoon appeared on Albino Black Sheep as well as Newgrounds before appearing on Ebaum's World. The creator has stated that he did not give permission on Newgrounds and elsewhere. User:Bill BIsco June 12th, 2006

AB, the owner of Albino Black Sheep, has already contributed in many ways and has teamed up with the creator's family against Bauman. -Led— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.154.112.227 (talk • contribs)

Psh, everything on the Internet's stolen by Eric Bauman.

NAMBLA?

"Eric Bauman is a member of NAMBLA (the north american man-boy-love-association) and has been since 2000. Many people do not believe this yet Eric admited to his membership after constant pressure from the media." Does anyone have a source to that statement?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.113.245 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is just vandalism by eBaum's World Sucks. They even have a topic there condoning it. --Machchunk

Not by us, we don't do stuff like that. It makes Bauman look like the victim.--Alexrules43 13:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Machchunk, I'd like you to re-read the article from the first page. The majority of comments posted in that thread condemn the vandalism, rather than condoning it. I myself have posted to that thread, in fact. DarkMasterBob 07:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, spell my name right. Second, yes, maybe I said it in a wrong way (in fact, I'm the member webmeister from that forum), but the point is there were people saying it was justified. What I said doesn't even have to mean the regulars did it. It could just be the n00bs who don't know any better. --Machchunk

I notice you reported me for saying I'm webmeister. Um, why? Because I am. I really am the member "webmeister" from that forum. What do you find particularly wrong with that? Machchunk 19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, I didn't report you for any such thing. I might have (I have a lousy memory), but I'm fairly sure I didn't. That being said, I may, alternately, have jumped the gun, because I'm usually online at 3:30 AM and half-asleep at the time. If I misread and did something dumb, I apologize. 207.216.10.130 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure someone did. I checked Tiwhatevertheheckitis Brass's contribs and I saw his comment to a report on the administrators' noteboard or something that said something like, "this guy says he's the 'webmeister' of that forum, go check him out". What the heck would a webmeister BE anyways. --Machchunk 02:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It was Zoe, apparently. Geez, what nerve. --Machchunk 03:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reposted Content

I reposted some of the content and added a disclaimer that it just rumor. People still need to know that SOMETHING was/is still going on. Again, they are rumors without evidance, but there are some strong claims on there. Dragon-Girl March 28th, 2006

What sucks is you're getting a lot of childish people posting ignorant comments. That's what happens when EVERYONE can edit anything (i.e. Congress Controversy). And thank you Alwarren. I would of done that sooner, but I was at school and didn't have the time. You've made it a decent page again. Dragon-Girl March 28th, 2006

Unveryfiable content removed

I removed all of the unverifiable content on this page. There's no reason to have rumors and propaganda here. Fetty 19:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Quality" section

I personally see little need for the section detailing that when eBaum rebrands images that it degrades the quality of them. Looking at the comparison of an original image and rebranded one, it's difficult to see a significant difference, and thus it would have done better for them to be bigger. However, I don't really see how much the section adds to the article, and it would probably benefit it to shorten it a little and integrate it into another part. 24.7.163.154 23:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the difference in image quality, if it exists, is not clear enough to be mentioned. -Unknownwarrior33 02:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This article keeps getting worse

And worse, and worse, and worse. Also, someobdy removed my comments to the talk page. Anyway, going to make an effort at cleanup. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 23:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do. The vast majority of it could just be deleted. Dbchip 23:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Made an attempt at cleaning things up a bit. Definitely not done, but most of the stuff that made me wince is gone. Alwarren@ucsd.edu 00:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where exactly, then, does the YTMND incident belong? Someone tried to make a seperate Contreversy page, but that was shot down. --Tiler 05:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Like any other page, controversy belongs ON the page of the article, rather than on another site in an attempt to redirect information and avoid discussion of the topic. --OMG LAZERS 22:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Forum Invasions

Ebaum's users have hacked the YTMND forums again at forums.ytmnd.com/ , replacing the letter 'a' with a message about '_EBAUMS FORUMS OWNS U_' and a number of unidentifiable characters. The stylesheet has been removed, and the line dividing the signature from the main body of the post has been replaced with a pornographic image of two men having intercourse. After 10 seconds, every page forwards to forums.ebaumsworld.com. I'm not sure what proof you guys need to say that this sort of thing is happening, but it's happening right now if you want to go over and check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.145.64 (talk • contribs)

You should've checked the April 1, 2006 page. YTMND is pretending to be "bought" by Eric and Neil Bauman. In the process, the real eBaum's World forums are being flooded. --Tokachu 19:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This was stolen?

AS much as I hate bauman, when i checked this page, all it said was "I stole this from ebaumsworld. People need to stop playing with this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superducktoes (talk • contribs)

Are you suggesting we request the page be protected? --Tokachu 01:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This page is not protection-worthy since the controversy is long gone and people are not out to vandalize the page as much as say, things related to current issues. --OMG LAZERS 22:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the controversy is *not* 'long gone'. Bauman attempted to have a television show launched, though as of 9/25/2006, it was apparently cancelled before production began. He has also, apparently, stolen from Disney's website (does he know what a pile he's stepping in by messing with the House of Mouse, I wonder?) sometime in the past three months. 207.216.10.130 07:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Unverified Section

"On February 27, 2006 a researcher named Bradley Scott..."

The unverified section above is from the albinoblacksheep forums, in a thread by AB (the owner of albinoblacksheep) I'll get the link as soon as I get a chance. Ziiv 15:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. This is what that person was referencing. [[1]] Since a forum can't be considered a "credible publication," I'm going to delete the section.Ziiv 06:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

A recorded phone call and emails are evidence though. http://www.absforums.com/ebaum.html Please do not dismiss this.

Anything Good?

Is there anything good to say about eBaums World? I am finding it more and more difficult to find any site that have any positive comments towards this website. What's the deal? --MrBucket 01:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The main reason that most people who are active enough on the internet to actually make a presence and voice their opinion for people to read are the people who frequent sites like YTMND or Something Awful. EBaum's policy of 'it is easier to ask for forgivness than permission' has really riled these readers up (like myself). For that reason, it's hard to find anyone who posts on things like, say, Wikipedia discussion pages with much good to say about Ebaum. If you find someone who only knows Ebaum from word of mouth and is less internet savy (See - 10 year old girls and yuppies) they'll enjoy Ebaum for it's large archive of content in one place. --OMG LAZERS 22:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, they'll only think that until they're told that all eBaum does is steal the content, and then probably join one of the three camps of opinion on him. And sadly, once you've visited the site many times, you become ensnared by the opinion that it's so wonderful, you feel threatened by those who want it to not be there. ...Gee, I guess psychology class did help... Tom Temprotran 01:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, yeah this is far from neutral. --Spikelee 05:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Something that needs to be said

I know that Eric Bauman is not the most highly regarded person on the Internet today, but there is an obvious lack of effort in trying to keep this page neutral. The image of the main page with the advertisements and popups is blatantly biased and completely inappropriate. Just because there are advertisements on the site and this is a true statement does not make this OK. Why isn't the first sentence of the Adolf Hitler article, "Adolf Hitler was the leader of Nazi Germany and an oppressive racist responsible for the heartless slaughter of millions of Jews"? Yes, it's every bit true, but it's inconsistent with the policies of Wikipedia because it gives people a technically non-neutral impression. Of course, everybody who read the article would eventually realize that he was a sick monster, but that's only through presenting facts in a completely neutral way.

I don't mean writing this article like "eBaum said X, but X is wrong because of Y"; you should say stuff like "eBaum claims X, but critics contest this because of Y". Wikipedia is a neutral enyclopedia. I know that we can all do better. Oklonia 22:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The screenshot is displaying the page with ads. It is correct to point out that part of the screenshot is ads and not part of the website, not to mention that the ads are the reason why Ebaum has gotten so much revenue off the site. It is not negative and is completely accurate to say that the site has a lot of ads. The supposedly non-NPOV things you are point out aren't even being put in to portray the site in a negative light. Nor are we going to water down facts as "claims". --Xombie 00:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The original screenshot (check the image history) was much cleaner and had no ads visible on it, but it was removed under claims that the image was inaccurate. So I took a screenshot with the advertisements. What you don't see is that the "Entrepreneuer" pop-up appeared four times, not just once as it appears in the screenshot. If you doubt me, go to the web site yourself. --Tokachu 03:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with ads but placing the pop-up at the bottom is biased. We would not do that with any of the millions of other sites that have pop-up ads. I have no problem with banners ads being displayed because they are part of the page... or mentioning that the site does open lots of pop-ups... but, they are not part of the site. gren グレン 07:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The part edited out was not necessary or factual. I am going to edit out (humorously subtitled "Media For Dumbasses") It is unnecessary and not factual. --Spikelee 15:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I some changes. Feek free to comment on them,. --Spikelee 00:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The picture that used to be there wasn't a pop up but something that was built onto the front page, like a layer, that slides across from the side -inside- the window. If they don't wanna be depicted like that, take off that one ad and makes 1% less money and earn some credibility and not look like a porn site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.33.33.44 (talk • contribs) .

I uploaded that image. That image is exactly how eBaum's World appeared when I loaded the web site without using any sort of ad-blocker or pop-up blocker. It's meant to convey the most accurate representation possible; in other words, what the average visitor would see. --Tokachu 03:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not ok to have ads beccause it violates US copyright laws, because ebaumsworld is a profitable organziation, and is hosted in the USA, it is subject to copyright laws, by taking others people's work and having ads he violates it, and he takes credit for their work by putting his watermark on it, claiming it as his. Secondly because some artist charge money to see their animations, hosting them on ebaumsworld, is disrupting the market, another violation of copyright laws 23:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Sgt Simpson

Latest Change

Okay, the last change I made I deem worthy of change. The alligations of the Funbar containing spyware are false according to the link. I'm also trying to keep this site neutral. It is not neutral. And the people that claim they are just reporting facts don't even have arguments for eBaums actions. They are all against eBaums actions. Please do not revert to the old article. --Spikelee 17:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit once again and added another warning your talk page. The 'allegation' is sourced via a notable website. Please stop removing it.--Andeh 00:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Animator vs. Animation"

Considering the recent conflict going on between Albino Blacksheep and ebaumsworld due to the "A vs A" video, could someone with knowledge about the whole issue write about it? --^hello,gadren 02:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrote some stuff about it, but it can be added to. Greatly added to. --Batmobile 22:16, 12 June 2006

You have to admit, he's good at what he does. Only took him...what? 2 days? To rip it off albinoblacksheep.com. We can only hope he doesn't manage to worm his way out of this next court case...--Labine50 04:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

http://ebaumsworld.com/flash/animator-vs-animation.html http://newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=511039 sources for new info added. So the guy took the money and then decided that he was cheated? Mgunit

From what I saw, he was sent the check without any notification. Then when he threatened with legal action, Eric Bauman said he won a "contest", offered him an additional $1000, and posted a quote making it look like he agreed to have it posted there. Alan also tried to send the money back.

Maybe you should go back to spamming siteadvisor.com. You're not fooling anyone. --Tokachu 04:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This is what I gather: eBaum took the flash. Alan threatened to sue (with the help of AlbinoBlackSheep). eBaum then gave Alan a grand total of $1250 for the flash. Alan took the money and said that eBaum had paid for it. eBaum put up a quote on the page from Alan saying he paid for it and he talked to Alan before the whole law suit thing started. Technically he did talk to Alan before the lawsuit but Alan told him that he couldn't have the flash so eBaum stole it. However, the quote made it sound like eBaum had permission before hand to post it which he did not. But since Alan took the cash he sold everyone out, everyone got pissed at him, and now he is trying to unsell out. It does look like eBaum removed the flash though Dominic 01:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Current Event banner

What happened to the curret event banner (or whatever it's called) at the top of the Controversy section? Considering the recent developments in the Animator vs. Animation/Albino Blacksheep vs. eBaum's battle, it seems like this is still quite current and likely to keep changing. IMFromKathlene 00:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

YTMND / eBaums war?

What happened to the mention of the DOS attack that YTMND users launched against eBaums? That seems to have been covered up nicely.

Y'know, when they pinged their chat and forums to death?--Mofomojo 03:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned. And let us not forget the DOS attack Ebaumsworld launched against SomethingAwful; after all, if we are going to mention such actions taken against Ebaumsworld, we must mention the DOS attacks they have launched.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.62.130 (talk • contribs)

I'm going to tone down the paragraph about YTMND-Day in the YTMND article and include it here. It deserves a huge mention.Sam 18:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Forums are not considered 'credible sources' on Wikipedia. Therefore, that claim is not substantiated, and every time you try to re-add it to the main page, I will delete it. Find some hard, admissable evidence, type it up in a way which dignifies Wikipedia (captials and punctuation especially), then add it. Not before. --Killfest2 13:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Child Pornography Claims

While YTMND is clearly a biased source for information, I do find that this image... [2] may be bordering on child pornography in this case, and thus the claims to be founded. Discussion? Payneos 03:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The edits are vandalism -- repeated, unsourced, exaggerated, inflammatory. I am not sure what you intend to accomplish by diverting the semi-protection discussion here. --G0zer 03:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A moderator already denied the protection claims and asked that discussion on the topic be redirected here. I have sourced the picture in question as being *possible* child pornography. You may view it here [3]. Payneos 03:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Crazy Telemarketer

Unless and until there are relibale secondary sources (i.e. outside eBaumsWorld forums and YTMND) this cannot go in. The irony of YTMND, masters of the copyvio soundtrack, accusing eBaums of copyright infringement is not lost on me :-) Just zis Guy you know? 10:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes...There is one big difference though...its called "Image Origin" and "Sound Origin". That means that the original image and audio authors or source are given credit. Ebaums world has had a number of instances where the author was not given credit and instead had Ebaums infamous watermark pasted on it. This made it look like it was the work of the website and not the authors. Ebaums also have had a number of authors come out and say they did not submit their work to Ebaum's, did not consent it, and still didn't approve of it after the "theft". Ytmnd has never been accused of this by any authors. They have only been accused by retaliating Ebaum's users. If Ebaums is just like YTMND in theft, then why isnt YTMND being as openly criticized like Ebaums by both spectators and Authors alike?--CoolDrMoney9 19:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)My Brother and Me = Best show ever

• • True. JzG, maybe you should look into this kind of stuff more. --Clorox MUN Goatse Virgin ONS (diskussion/fortune cookie) 20:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• • giving credit to source is a pretty minor thing under US law and you are pretty much required to do it but it provides you with sod all protection. For example mysterysongisfound.ytmnd.com/ is a pretty clear copyvio. The reason no one objects that most of the theft is from big companies or from random people with stuff on google images so no one cares (If I was really feeling board I'd send YTMND the standard set of failing to follow the GFDL notices).Geni 22:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not the issue though, YTMND is not on trial. This is about how eBaum allegedly stole a long humorous sound file from someone else without giving proper credit. Attacking YTMND is not a way of proving eBaum's innocence. Payneos 16:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You appear to have missed to point. I'm not getting involved in you conflict or issues. Just makeing observations from the sidelines.Geni 02:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The way it was presented, however, does not make sense. YTMND is not in copyright violation because YTMND is a non-profit website, where the vast majority of its' users cite where they get their work, and do not profit from it in any way (As does the owner of the website.) The difference comes where eBaum sells his prime slot ads at up to $8,000, does generally not cite his sources, copyrights them for himself (with his "trusty" watermark), allows them to be seen for free, and the site as a whole *is* for profit. Payneos 02:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Stangly being non-profit while helpful in a fair use case does not provide any where near complete protection. Neither does citeing your source. YTMND contians thousands on copyvios. So do other sites that allow user uploads such as youtube and even wikipedia (I should know I delete enough of the darn things). It is just how things are. Until you have read say this at least I would suggest you don't argue with me about copyright since I deal with it on wikipedia day in day out and as a result have a fairly good idea about how it works.Geni 03:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

However, it does provide enough protection. YTMND does not copyright violate due to the Fair Use clause that states... the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. As it states, YTMND is strictly for the use of criticism, commentation, and parody. As with § 107. (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, the amount of a whole of material that is used in each YTMND is so insignificantly small, it shouldn't matter. This also works with § 107. (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work, where YTMND clearly has *no* effect on the use upon the potential markets of all the copyrighted work used. YTMND is quite safe under the fair clause, as stated here [4], and if it's good enough for Cornell, it's good enough for me. Payneos 03:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

criticism and commentation on YTMD is limted. Parody would of course be it's strongest case but far from universal. While the short should loops would probably be OK complete images would not be so for example content.ytmnd.com/content/c/8/d/c8dccc9b0d1e0ec7815a9786deb8af81.jpg content.ytmnd.com/content/1/b/c/1bcbff340b35b90ca311d839fce0844a.jpg content.ytmnd.com/content/7/b/e/7be89fe3d874d151fa26819973034a5a.gif content.ytmnd.com/content/1/a/3/1a3846a1c4d84dfa219f00eba43fe24a.jpg content.ytmnd.com/content/4/c/2/4c266b9dadbe01f3a1b208beb84fe221.jpg Are probably copyvios. didto most of the wikipedia screens shots which need to be released under the GFDL and have a list of authors and copy of the GFDL added.10:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree as well. Though YTMND is known for being a bit sycophantic in their crusade against eBaums, they do hold the high ground in this argument if you look into it. A proper citation is not needed as of yet, but will be if this drags on longer, especially since one will become available. You tend to be very aggressive in your deletions as your talk page suggests, but give this one time, it's not something that will happen overnight. This situation requires patience. Payneos 20:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A proper citation is always needed.Geni 22:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not if you take the edit on Good Faith. Payneos 23:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't think that WP:AGF means "believe what other editors say even if they don't offer proof." That seems to be completely contrary to WP:CITE and WP:V not to mention completely unworkable in practice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ElKevbo (talk • contribs) 23:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it as vandalism."

I would have to guess by the opening statements that by this effect, these people are trying to help Wikipedia by adding reasonable facts to the site. They don't seem to be vandalizing, but actually making a contribution. You can't cite EVERYTHING you place in Wikipedia (See: Opie and Anthony) so sometimes an edit that is not qualifiable under vandalism should be taken in good faith. Payneos 00:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can't provide a cite you run into WP:NOR.Geni 02:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to do "original research" in this case, so no, it does not. Again, the edit must be taken in good faith, you are not taking the edits in Good Faith, so you request citation. Payneos 16:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting sources for a particular assertion or alleged fact has nothing to do with good faith and everything to do with verifiability and providing reasonable evidence for what we state in this encyclopedia article. Someone who requests that you provide a source is not necessarily assuming that you are wrong or that your edit is vandalism - they are simply requiring that you provide verifiable evidence supporting your edit. It's not personal and it's certainly not any sort of attack on you or your credibility. It's how we maintain this encyclopedia. It's what makes this an encyclopedia. --ElKevbo 17:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur, but it is a noteworthy event. If it was irrelevant, I would agree, but there's no publication to cite off of yet, yet it is a reasonably major event in the controversy that surrounds eBaumsworld. I also believe that just because it can't be cited, that means it needs to be deleted, which is what is being done. It should be modified so that it IS acceptable for the article. Not everything can be cited, and that's my point. The relevance is there, so I see no need to cite it right off the bat. Payneos 18:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If it can't be cited then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. That doesn't mean it's not important or interesting - it's just something we can include in an encyclopedia article. --ElKevbo 06:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And again, if you're to hold to that faith all the time, most articles would be a few sentences long, if that. Not everything can be cited, and that's why you have Good Faith. Just because you cannot cite it does *not* mean it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Payneos 06:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If it can't be cited it is original reseach.Geni 08:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Waving the flag of WP:AGF to obscure blatant violations of WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS is called Wikilawyering. The "parody" fair use justification would apply to a short clip parodying the sound work itself; many of the soundtracks are long or complete and used to parody some other work (which is definitely not covered by fair use). If the copyright lawyers ever became interested in YTMND I suspect that there would be a wholesale cull. Just zis Guy you know? 08:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So, here's what I propose. Clean up everything from every article that cannot be cited. Yes, I know, but if you're going to scream citations on the simplest of things, I could give you a laundry list of articles with little to no citation that need your attention far more than a simple eBaum/YTMND debate. I doubt YTMND could ever be brought under any lawsuit because if looked at the way it is intended, it is a parody website as all sound clips are used in humor, and the vast majority are short (under the 15 seconds which is usually the standard before it becomes a copyright violation). In most cases, if an author did not truncate the audio properly, it's because they didn't know how.

What I'm trying to say is, don't be so anal aboot uncited sources sometimes. They're necessary to the Encyclopedia, especially when there is no proper citation available yet to relevant, important information. Payneos 09:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No probler citetations available = original research.Geni 10:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually what you propose (in order to knock it down) is precisely what we should do. There sould be no facts in Wikipedia which canot be verified from reliable secondary sources. That's policy - uncited content is never necessary, if something can't be cited then it has no place here. I think the fundamental problem here is that you seem to want Wikipedia to take on the role of a YTMND news / FAQ / Wiki / blog; actually the encyclopaedic content here is that YTMND is a social networking site with humorous content, and its members have had spats with membvbers of some other social networking sites. Just zis Guy you know? 10:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Geni, repeating the same thing over and over won't make it any more valid in this case. As far as what you're stating JzG, in my work on the Opie and Anthony Article, if you remove all that can't be "properly cited" you lose most of the information in the article. Because it is a radio show, most of the show's important, relevant information is not normally cited in a publication, and therefore is simply included without it. For instance, an important member of the show, their producer Erik Nagel is not once placed in any publication they've been in. But he is very important to the show, because he is their Producer.

It has nothing to do with wanting to turn eBaums into a YTMND News/FAQ/Blog, that's what the YTMND wiki is for. They have one, you know. This has everything to do with the spread of important, relevant information which is what Wikipedia IS for. And sometimes, you have to assume good faith, which you have not done, when it comes to an uncited source. It might be Wikilawyering, but as I see it, this Encyclopedia cannot stand on citations alone. Payneos 15:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it can. How do you know that Erik Nagel has never appeared in any publication? He appears here.Geni 16:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Then let's be a little more fancy, since I wasn't aware Foundry would be acceptable to some of the tougher standards of Wikipedia. Can you find citation for Steve from Yellowstone, Gregg Hughes (Not Opie himself, but when he steps out of character), and G. Yogurt Liddy? They're all characters from the show that are "important and relevant." Payneos 16:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus, as far as I can recall, every time I have been told that information should be included because it is "important" and "relevant" even though it can't be cited from reliable sources, it has been by someone with a vested interest in one side or other of the argument. Which is, of course, why we insist on verifiability from reliable secondary sources, because otherwise not only is it WP:OR, it's also impossible to ensure [{WP:NPOV]]. Just zis Guy you know? 16:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Which again, shows you do not take the edits in "good faith." How are you to infer that just because they cannot cite, immedately they have a "vested interest" in making the article lean one way or another? And by that extension, are you inferring that I am? As having a long standing debate on the importance of "important" and "relevant" information that cannot be cited, I am debating this because I have a similar issue going on over at Talk: Opie and Anthony. Payneos 05:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What, do you people actually expect a real media outlet to print, "EBaum's World steals Crazy Telemarketer!"? What kind of secondary source do you people need?! There are plenty of dates on the content that show what date each we put up, so there should be no debate about neededing another media source.

The kind where it's in a major media outlet that's able to be a citable source (Like a newspaper's website). The Wiki prides itself on being reliable and accurate, sometimes at the cost of notability. --Payneos 19:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

OR and Factual

I went ahead and put the OR and Factual Accuracy tags up on the main page since it seems both are in serious question on a daily basis on the page. Can we go ahead and sort out facts, fiction, and claims that should/should not be on the page and work on a consensus for getting them in the article/dropping them? Payneos 23:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Merge completed per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Bauman. Viridae^Talk 00:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Google Baum?

There is this resistance against Eric Bauman, wich is found here, at [5]. How this is done? By using the Google Bomb technique, there is a one-line article about this, found at [6] at the and of the controversy. (WikiSearch the term, my friends)

Call Centre

Don't know if this is relevent but when you call Ebaums world HQ to comaplin or enquire about things sometimes they put you on to a black guy who just seems ot try and take the piss out of you and it is almost impossible to complain properly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.195.59.222 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure that that's entirely relevant. At least Albino Blacksheep recorded their calls to/from eBaum. --Tokachu 18:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why has it not been taken down?

I don't get it. They show people getting killed, blown up, someone jacking off on other people and animals gettting killed but it is still up. What the hell is going on, surely it is illegal? I used to like it but now it just goes to shock tactics. --80.229.241.200 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you cite an example of such claims? --Payneos 21:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure just go and look at the site. But if you really want to list some.

There was this video (which I did ot watch) named "Dog being used as shark bait", how sick do you have to be to watch that. There was this video named "someone takes public masterbation to the next level, public ejaction" Urm cumming on someone in the street that kinda comes under prevert!

Yeah I saw the public masturbation video. It has been taken down now, but it was so horrible. It was just gross, I don't see how anyone could find it funny. It was just a video of a guy jerking off and then he walked up to a girl and ejaculated on her hair....that's it. So gross. Konman72 22:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter if what KIND of content is on the site, but the fact that this person earns a PROFIT off of other people's work, without their consent. THAT in itself is WRONG, and I don't have any clue to why this guy and his father has not been seriously sued. Instead, the guy gets his own television show? That's sick. -- IceSage 09:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the fact what he's doing is wrong, KNOWS what he's doing is wrong, KNOWS that he can get away with it, and does so that makes me respect him. He's like Bill Gates on a smaller scale -- he knew every single thing he did to eliminate his competition was wrong, and the worst he could get is a slap on the wrist for it, given how much money he has. Bauman's the same way -- he knows it'd take way too much work for anyone to get his site taken down and successfully sue him. Even if it did happen a long time from now, he'll probably have maneuvered his money around so that there's nothing left for the plantiffs to get. MewtwoStruckBack 15:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I got concerned about the animal abuses and contacted a big animal rights group. They said that the only option is to complain to the FCC. They are the ones that can sort this out. Archer7 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi/Full protection

I think it's probably about time this page was protected again. In the full week and a half since this page was unprotected, there must have been only one or two genuine edits, with the rest being vandalism, time and again. It's clear that this page is just going to continue to attract vandalism for a long time to come. Perhaps it is time for protection again, even if just semi, incase someone actually wants to make a valid edit any time soon? --Dreaded Walrus 00:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just request semi protection that should stop it, most of them are coming from ytmnd.com --Synth 16:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I was about to mention the same thing. Yeah, we need semi-protection, just to keep the anonymous people at bay. --DarkAdonis255 18:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would request it myself, but I am not fully certain how to go about it. Also, it is certain that the vast majority are from ytmnd. I actually quite like that site, and I am very much against eBaum's world, but just like with the Jack Thompson article, it's certainly best to just list the facts and let people themselves decide how morally wrong it is. If anyone can go about getting a semi-protection on this though, that would be great. --Dreaded Walrus 02:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested. HawkerTyphoon 16:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I couldn't help but notice that the categories for this article are "Stolen works of art" and "Gay porn stars." When I look back at the history of this article, those two categories aren't associated with this article and instead has the categories "Comedy Websites" and "Entertainment Websites." I think it would be best if that part of the article was reverted to how it was originally. Rruelas 04:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. As you can see in the page history, it was pretty heavily vandalised earlier, so some of the reverts might not have hit their mark. I've reverted the categories you mentioned. Again, thanks for the heads-up. --Dreaded Walrus 04:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's been hit pretty hard today. What the heck's going on? Kestrel 04:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As you'll probably know if you've been watching this article, it's been steadily vandalised ever since it was unprotected, weeks ago. Pretty much all of the vandalism seems to be coming from YTMND users. And whilst I understand their side of the story, and am in no way a fan of eBaum's World myself, I feel (as I mentioned in response to a comment on my talk page just now) that putting merely the facts in an event such as this often portrays the subject more accurately than removing all text other than the letters "NEDM". --Dreaded Walrus 04:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

WWWWI

"On January 6, 2006, eBaum's World hosted and watermarked a Lindsay Lohan montage created by YTMND user SpliceVW without crediting either SpliceVW or YTMND. In response, users from YTMND joined users from other internet communities, namely Something Awful, LUElinks, Newgrounds, Totse, 4chan, FARK, Ugoplayer (Flashplayer.com), Weebls-Stuff, and IGN. These groups disrupted the eBaum's World forums with spam posts and DDoS attacks. On January 10, eBaum's World alleged the attacks were a form of "cyber-terrorism", and on January 11, Neil Bauman stated publicly that arrests were being made in relation to the attacks, though none have been made public as of yet. Max Goldberg, the owner of YTMND, and Neil Bauman eventually came to an agreement, with Bauman agreeing to remove the montage from his website, and in return, for Goldberg removing any reference to "eBaum" from his website. Despite the resolution, both sites experienced DDoS attacks on the morning of January 12, 2006. "

UGOplayer, also known as flashplayer, never took any part in the attack. I do not know where you had a source to say that. There was an urging that Flashplayer should join the YTMND side, but no person representing UGOPlayer as a forum attacked.68.192.25.106 13:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

my dos pesos!

Ok, i don't know much about eBaum's world, but from scanning the article i must say that unless someone NPOV's this article some more, you may as well say the author was the illegitimate child of Bill Gates and Prometheus. In other words, negative much? WookMuff 08:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Broken link

I'm too new a member to do anything about this but, the link in the trivia section seems to be broken.

"He has also purchased an $850,000 office building and a $150,000 home."

If anyone wants to do anything about this, it mightn't be a bad idea.

Sakesaru 05:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Entire page was deleted and redirected to the word Thief. Reverted it back to the previous version. Eban 19:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not necessary to note this in the Talk page. This one would quickly fill up if we left a note here every time we reverted vandalism. :) --ElKevbo 19:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

POV line

The following paragraph seem to add a lot of commentary of eBaumsWorlds actions.

“ In late 2005, Sega threatened to sue eBaum's World after a copy of the game "Super Monkey Ball" was posted on the site. Adding injury to the insult, not only was the Flash-based game posted on the site, it was "hot-linked," meaning that the game was merely diplayed on the webpage while being hosted on Sega's official website... ”

The paragraph states that hotlinking the flash file was "adding injury" to the "insult" The problem with this is that it has a condoning tone. Not to mention weasel words like "insult" and "injury".-- Selmo ^(talk) 21:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Vague sentence

“ It went on to issue him a draft notice to join Eric's program for flash animators to put eBaum's World logos in all their animations. ”

What exactly does it mean by this? That Bauman asked Mokris to get all animators to put his logo on everything? That he wanted eBaum's users to put the logo on stuff? It's a bit indefinite in it's meaning. ANyone care to refone it? --Ω 11:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It says eBaum's World logos. It think that sounds pretty clear, no need to change it. --Machchunk | make some noise at me

That's not what I meant, I meant that it doesn't specify which flash animators it means. Sorry if I was a bit unclear about that. --Ω 16:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Other side of controversy

I am Pro-eBaum, and I can make this article more neutral by putting up what we believe. Should I do it or not? To see what I'm talking about, look at this thread: My forum thread. ZerotigerX 04:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking no. The Ebaumsworld forum is not a valid source. Just like any other website. I think I remember something like this on the YTMND page, but I can't find it... Mchmike 03:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you even look at the URL of that link? It's from eBaum's World Sucks Sucks, as you could've plainly seen. Not the eBaum's forums.

And yes, that is in fact a valid source. The thread has e-mails directly from the authors. I'm anti-eBaum, and even I think you making assumptions. --Machchunk | make some noise at me 03:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, unlike some of the stuff on this article, I try to back it up as much as I can. The stuff that I was debunking was real stuff that eBaumsworld Sucks said was stolen. That post doesn't fully explain the other side though, so you might want to check out this. As I back up these statements, I think this is a valid source. ZerotigerX 04:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I no longer approve of Ebaumsworld nor EBWS, I think the information included should remain with just your site link, because whilst your site's objective may be to prove Eric's innocence, there is little factual information to debate this given the nature of such an undertaking. Aside from the argument between ALtF4 and Eric, which is subjective since most of AltF4's arguments and insults arose from Max Goldberg's earlier clash with Neil Bauman, in which Neil was being the insulter. Other than Eric's comment of theft in the "Dude, That Is So Not Funny" link at the base of the Wikipedia page, no one person can be blamed for the site's use of incorporating unpermissible content. However, it is only natural that everyone directs the blame to Eric because he is the original creator of the site, and should do his best to discourage this kind of act.

Besides, the information presented in the "Controversy" article pertains only to that which is factually known. It doesn't even point out the fact that Michael Parker made the mistake in his Attack of the Show interview, only referring to his statement and nothing more. Furthermore, it does not single out Eric Bauman as an individual, but rather the whole site in general, so for all intents and purposes the entry shows only criticism of the site, whilst the rest is a description of its features and the TV attempt.

Sure, but people are getting terribly mislead here. If Wikipedia, which is supposed to be neutral in the first place, tells us that eBaum steals, then what's stopping us from believing it? These claims are not backed up and are just clear accusations, and therefore should not even take up 75% of the article in the first place. 65.122.197.116 00:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)