Talk:EBaum's World

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.)

This IS biased

There is no way that this article could possibly be neutral. If you look at it, there is an imbalance between the positive things about the website and the criticism that has been received. There is a link to a mirror of someone who was banned from the online forums for asking content to be removed, which is blatantly an effort to make people think that he is bad. The link to a parody of him is listed three different times, as well as a rebranded image, and most of the trivia is negative. It also claims that Bauman's taking content from other websites is theft, and in the beginning claims that everything on the website was stolen.

Ebaumsworld.com is one of the most visited websites on the Internet. There can be more said about the website itself than just the people who hate it. Somebody has got to do something about this, as the way that he is portrayed is very unprofessional, and despite whether or not it is true, this isn't the Wikipedia way.

I did some editing, but more can be done. People should, as you said, add some more info. Oklonia 06:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck thinking of some positive things about eBaum's world.--72.49.62.205
Thanks. We can't have the page this way.
The idea that this article must shed a light of good favour onto Eric Bauman and his site is a little narrow. If one weighs up his 'good' deeds (namely uh ... making a website with funny things) versus his 'bad' deeds (namely, appropriating those things) one would come to the conclusion that in fact he deserves all the scorn that can be heaped upon him. You dispute that it is theft, but what else is it if Ebaum takes this content then 'brands' and serves it for his own lucrative gain? The negativity did not spring up out and imagine itself into existence! It was brought about by a sustained effort by the site to sully itself by misdeed! I challenge you, if you will, to add whatever positivity you can to the article. Bilious 16:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although I found the soundboards quite amusing, I do think it has some morbid humor. The fact is, Bauman goes to extreme lengths to amuse himself, and others, and does crazy things just to get a laugh. So, not surprisingly, this article may not balance out, because there are not many good things to say about the site because of its content, which unfortunately, is bad. They have made fun of Sikhs [1] and receive tons of hate mail monthly. They have also featured a boy getting an erection [2], which is also very, very innappropriate. The site has also demeaned and made fun of people with Epilepsy [3], and the overweight population. So while the site provokes laughs, it is very offensive to anyone, whether they be a religious minority, or a pre-teen boy, I am not surprised if this article has broken the NPOV policy. And if it is POV, someone did it very slyly, because it is sure organized to look as if it isn't. I'm quite sure this man has offended every minority and every person in some way, or would, if that person ever came across it. Эйрон Кинни 07:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, there's only so many positive things you can say about something. You can't expect to come up with as much good as bad for, say, Adolf Hitler. I'm not comparing Bauman to Hitler; I'm just using that as an extreme example of the facts dictating a negative POV. Chiphead 02:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I can think of plenty of good things that Hitler did. Eric Bauman is another story. 68.206.21.37 16:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The man is a thief, plain and simple. Klosterdev 23:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completion

I'd like to add that the following statement needs to be changed: "However, this did not stop the forum hacking which eventually redirected the forum to YTMND or porn or some points."

The forum was redirected to YTMND *only* during this time. I and several others who were viewing the forums at the time in question were able to verify this on a 5 minute window for about 6 increments of every 5 minutes. After about 30 minutes, the forums, as a whole, appeared to be deleted the hour and a half or so that it took for the forums to come back up appeared to be a restore from a backup. Just prior to the redirects there were two topics whose titles were changed, one demoting ebaumsworld and the other promoting YTMND. The grammar here should be fixed as well. Just change it so that there is a period after YTMND. Thanks.

It should also be noted that some of the attacks are the most organized many have ever seen any Internet group perform.

Other things to make this complete are the following: prankradio called Kelli Rinaudo's (his GF/co-worker, see: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050205/BUSINESS/502050313&SearchID=73198753940248 ) cell phone and got information that said her voicemail was full after someone did a google search and posted Eric Bauman's home information. The prank radio goons then proceeded to order Eric Bauman some pizza while some IRC users in #ebaum on ytmnd.com planned sending flowers to him with an apology for hacking/deleting the forums.

I registered an account to correct the line above and am finding out now that new users cannot fix this page. Can someone at least remove the "or some points" part? That makes this page look very unprofessional. It looks as if whoever was updating it just stopped midsentence.

Neutrality issues

"Ebaum's world forum registration was still disabled 4 days after users from Something Awful invaded it to mass request their original work be removed from the site, after emails from the owner of Something Awful were ignored. The original content was never removed and eBaum inserted malicious code into the main eBaum's page to cause DDoS attacks on Something Awful's forums. Registration on the forums has since been opened again." -If I remember correct the majority of the users who invaded were there in an attempt to take down the forums, and post spam, and the regular "forum invasion" pictures. Also, forum registration remains closed.

Ebaum in general is a bloated, putrid scab on the surface of internet humor. The man needs to feel what it is like for some of his rare "originial" content to be stolen. I seriously hope he learns his lesson and stops acting in this manner.

I don't see anything wrong with documenting criticism of Ebaum's World on the Ebaum's World encyclopedia entry, as long as such criticism is simply reported rather than stated as fact. ChaseVenters 02:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is entirely insane. SA started a fight with EBW today by invading, which they have done to a number of other forums / blogs / online jounals, and now they are vandalzing the wikipedia entry. The link at the bottom (Crediting Somethingawful as a source for "A lot of ebaumsworld material") is entirely opinion and false. Out of the thousands of files on EBW, maybe .0000001% originated from SA. The article makes frequent claims to "Some people" this is far too vague, if they are going to post it in this place they need to have sources for these claims, with proof of copyright. In the sections talking about the content and it's sources "all of which is from other websites) is false, as EBW licenses the majority of its content. Also the line about the forum "other great subforums" is also opinion and should be changed to reflect a neutral point of view. Also I would like to see a source for Baumans claim that "most everything on the internet is public domain"

Though this isnt the place for this, I find it very hypocritical that SA admins cry foul to their site being taken down, after hosting an invasion which caused a loss of service for ebw forums. In the end, wikipedia admins, please make this article more neutral, thank you - MG

Ebaums is nothing but a thief. Perhaps his site currently wouldn't be overrun by goons if he hadn't decided to steal other people's hard work and remove the watermarks, just like he does with everything else on his site. Don't pretend Ebaums is innocent here, because he deserves every bit of what he's dealing with right now. Do not compare Somethingawful to Ebaums-- Somethingawful produces entirely original material, whereas Ebaums steals everything it can. Jtrainor 02:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting this page, and on behalf of SA I apologize for the few bad apples who thought it would be hilarious to vandalize the entry. -MrPhaethon

It's not neutral at all now - anon

This article doesn't exactly sound neutral to me, I get the feeling that it is condemning eBaum's World and saying he is nothing but a thief. I'm sure there is truth to that, but it should be presented in a more matter-of-fact manner. -Eszett posting as 65.170.120.116 13:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of "thief", really. I put in his side of the argument; does that make things more neutral?DS 17:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since I'm pretty sure that material on the internet isn't automatically public domain, some smartey legal person should post a refutation of eBaum's claim that it is. RMG 20:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone point out where eBaum ever claimed that everything on the net is public domain, or even everything on his site? I'm not sure a public statement has been let out on this matter?

Someone should put this guy behind bars, where he belongs. [maestro] 10:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RMG, you're correct that material on the internet isn't automatically public domain. In fact, nothing is public domain except a) items that are specifically intended by the creator to be public domain, and marked as such; and b) items that have existed for so long that copyright has run out. When exactly copyright runs out depends on the country of origin and the date of creation, but in any event we're talking 75 years or more, so anything created on the Net will automatically be under copyright unless the creator specified that it would be public domain.

- User:watsondog 13:20, 31 August 2005

I can get in touch with azuretek if you would like, although I generally don't like talking to him, and there really isn't much more to say about his (factually incorrect) opinions on copyright law. --69.229.234.154 21:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page got a link on the Something Awful Forums so it might be getting some vandalism. The last couple seem to be ok, it a little on the biased side. Personally I think there is pretty overwhelming proof he profits from stealing other people's copyrighted works and that should be left in.

Guys we're not a court, we're an encyclopedia. Try to document accusations made by others, rather than accusing Bauman directly in the article. --Weevil 21:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I'm willing to get a quote straigt from azure, but the total jackass he's made of himself is archived somewhere on SA's forums anyways, so I don't really see the point. --69.229.234.154 21:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not everyone has a forums account. You should post a screenshot of what he posted. -- Wells

This is a screenshot of a quote from ebaumsworld.com programmer azuretek: File:Azuretek.png It can be found at http://archives.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?postid=295777384&highlight=#post295777384 if you have an account. The thread he was replying to regarded the film mentioned here: http://emptv.com/ebw.html (mirror of thread on ebaums forums which they opted to delete instead of complying or responding to the legal request) The film still hasn't been removed from http://www.ebaumsworld.com/flash/schfiftyfive.html Quadpus 01:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to do much work to see examples of blatent copyright infringement. For example, I guarantee that Sega, Inc. didn't give permission for him to use their products in the promotion of his website: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/monkeyball.html CrazyLittle 06:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(just a little note, you guys should probibly check that link /monkeyball.html... they know you guys are looking at it..)

To make that worse game download levels from Sega's servers, I reccomend contacting Sega and complaining 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ebaum regulalrly chops up images and removes copyright watermarks in order to hide the true owners of an image. This has happen many times. Someone could probably show proof by going into the internet archive and pulling an image from the stolen site with the original watermark in-tact before it was posted on ebaumsworld. I don't have the time to do this, but maybe someone else could. -- Bondgamer

This article has neutrality issues alright -- it's too pro-eBaum's world sided. It's ironic that you're all so NPOV obcessed that you manage to hold a POV by removing the references to content being stolen. Bauman steals all of his content and rebrands it, he doesn't "take it", since he refuses to take down media even when he's notified. And now, I'm going to be completely ignored just because I didn't bother logging in. Damn you, wikibots and your elitist, Mr. Spock attitude. ~ 213.146.205.95 18:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that even though some strides have been made to make this article neutral, it is still filled with misconceptions, and in some places outright lies. The decompiling of flash part.... I havent seen this, nor has any real proof of this been posted. Also why are the claims of theft allowed to be posted if they are not proven to be fact? Until Bauman is convicted of stealing content (dont give me the "The victims are too small" excuse, what about viacom. What about lawyers that will work for a small fee up front, and for a percentage of the take?)

"Also why are the claims of theft allowed to be posted if they are not proven to be fact?"

Do you honestly believe that eBaum creates every single image, flash and video on his site?

The point is that most, if not all of eBaums content is stolen, and denying that only shows your ignorance. You can argue it's not illegal, you can say whatever you want but in the end it is all stolen content and on the wikipage it should say that.

NPOV in protected article...

"In the forum there are areas to post pictures, videos, and high scores for games (among other great subforums)"

I personally feel the word "great" should be removed. It's a classic opinion, not a fact. -GregNorc (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like how the page has been protected in a form that removes any and all criticism of Ebaums. Jtrainor 02:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You will note from Wikipedia policy that page protection does not endorse the present version of the article: if you don't like what is written there, discuss it here, and don't accuse of favouritism in Wikipedia where none exists. -- Francs 2000

00:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine. I suggest that when the page is unprotected, a section entitled "Criticism of Ebaums" be added, where his theft of other people's work can be documented. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who have had stuff stolen by him that would LOVE to speak up. Jtrainor 02:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Its not a tool for getting even. Its an encyclopedia. It is enough to acknowledge that Ebaum stole content; its not necessary to document every instance. -- Bubbachuck 02:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, if the article claims that eBaumsworld has appropriated material, it is almost a requirement that there be an external link documenting this or citing an external source, so that the article maintains a NPOV. If the article is going to make a controversial claim, then it ought to cite a source. --Zippy 05:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote from a forums complaining about eBaum's: "The well and very often made point is that they're not just hosting other people's intellectual property, they're doing it without their consent, whilst making money by doing so, and finally they often even have the audacity to imply it was their own material."

Not quite NPOV enough, I think - can anyone reword it? DS 19:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Ebaums is known for hosting other people's intellectual property without their consent, while making money by doing so, and claiming it is their own material."

That's a bit better. Jtrainor 21:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Known by who for stealing content?

How about:

eBaum's World hosts other people's intellectual property without their consent, while making money by doing so, and without providing the proper credit to the orignal creator.

Something funny

Ok, this will contribute absolutely nothing towards improving the page, but it's so brilliantly funny, I just got to post this link [4], though I must warn it may not be safe for work (I think it is, but others may disagree). Cheers!--Vertigo200 14:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget, it's all in the name of good humor.

And Neil keeps on delivering quality music. You can download the MP3 at http://www.ebaumsworldsucks.com/ --BodyTag 13:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny! I guess there is an internet war going on between ytmnd and ebaums. It should be interesting to see how this plays out.-- Mimbster 02:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested addition

I suggest adding the following as a new (additional) second paragraph:

As of early 2005, the site was getting 1 million hits a day, had more than 50,000 registered members, and was ranked as one of the top 500 sites by Alexa, a company that tracks websites. Its loyalists are mostly 18- to 34-year-old males in the United States.

And this as a link:

Class clown now nets 1 million hits a day: eBaumsworld.com goes from prank to profit, Amy Wu, Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, February 5, 2005

-I agree that this should be added. It will make the page seem less biased. ~Jade -I agree that this should be added, it is important, for those finding out about all this controversy to realise why it is that so many people care, though the financial information helps that. ~Garg

Also, shouldn't the "as of November 2005" be updated?

Retaliation from Something Awful

I think this should be added

"On November the 4th, Lowtax of somethingawful.com made a post requesting a massive forum invasion on eBaumsworld, stating that he had crossed the line by using malicous javascript to make requests to Somethingawful.com's servers which eventually caused some bother (fixed).

The forum invasion went ahead, within an hour ebaumsworld forums were near crippled as 2000+ goons mass registered and flooded the forums with large scale spam and such, bringing the forum server to crippled state. The mods couldn't clean up the mess as fast as it was being made, so they disabled registration and banned all users involved in the attack, but not before the forum server went down. As of 4 days later, registration is still disabled.

This is not the first time Somethingawful has gotten mad with eBaumsworld. They have constantly complained about the content made my by "Goons" being stolen from the site and had the now infamous ebaumsworld watermark pasted over the somethingawful.com URL. Infact it was such a routine thing that one time someone forgot that there was a transparant somethingawful grenade still on the image when it was posted on ebaumsworld, a clear indication of the blatant theft.

As a way of spreading the message, www.ebaumsworldsucks.com was created and is being spread as far as possible, even in ebaumsworld's chat room."

Note - this section was just blanked by an anonymous user. I reinstated the section, not because I agree with it, but because I do not feel that discussion should be deleted without, well, discussion. --Zippy 06:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Your facts are skewed. Lowtax sponsored the invasion BEFORE any accusations of "malicious code" were brought up.

Yes, but to be fair Lowtax sponsored the invasion after eBaums repeatedly ignored requests by Lowtax to remove the copyrighted material. This invasion was in response to the many cases of stolen content. All removal requests were ignored.

I think it's your facts that are skewed. The images in question were actually 4 years old. A forum member brought it to the attention of GBS and Lowtax, and Lowtax sent the word to invade less than 3 hours. Certainly not a reasonable period for Ebaum to remove the offending (and forgotten) images.

Furthermore this garbage about goons "mass requesting" the images be removed on their forums is ridiculous. There was little requesting and more outright unfunny idiocy that goons can't seem to stop doing, plus several members (like GBSTV faggot Putnam) took it upon themselves and others to DDOS Ebaums by posting scripts to do it. This article is heavily biased. --Diafel 22:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring to bring closer to NPOV

I just did a fairly major restructuring of the article (with very little rewriting) in order to make the article more balanced. I moved the criticisms into their own section (they were scattered throughout the article before) and also gave the Viacom dispute its own section. I did some rewriting of the text only to make it clearer and easier to read -- I've tried not to change the content of the criticisms or the description of the site too much.

I think the article is improved now, but it needs a long way to go. I would very much like some citations to external sources describing the site, the criticisms, and the Viacom deal. If people post cites here, I can put them into the main article. --Zippy 06:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest changing "Critics of the site say that all of the content" be changed to "Critics have pointed out that almost all of the content". There is no debate to be made about the content of Ebaums-- 99.99% of it is stolen from other sources. This is easily verifiable.

To me, the two statements say nearly the same thing, "critics (say / have pointed out) (all / almost all) of the content ..." --Zippy 07:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's the same to you, then humor me ._. Jtrainor 07:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see the distinction now. In the existing sentence, Critics say it's stolen, in your version, they point out the fact that it's stolen. I am not comfortable putting in the second version, if only because I can't link to something that supports the claim that the content is in fact stolen. This claim is in disputed (by Bauman), and Wikipedia is not the place to settle this dispute. The best we can do is to document the dispute and provide the best evidence to readers.

That said, I think readers will have little problem understanding the dispute if there's sufficient evidence supporting the argument. --Zippy 16:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about the GI Joe PSA's, made by Fensler Films? Fensler took them down from his own site after receiving a request from Hasbro, but the rebranded versions (and isn't there something about how the procedure for adding a watermark image to a video file lowers the quality?) - described as "our Public Service Announcements" are still up on [eBaum's], along with a link to their own cease-and-desist notice from Hasbro (which eBaum's is openly ignoring). Saying "we want to thank Fensler Films for creating these" on the one hand, and describing them as "ours" on the other... I'm also trying to get Jonti Picking to go on the record about his own complaints. DS 22:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Information

Should we include a part about the corporate information regarding Ebaum's World? I mean, a small comparison with similar sites, Newgrounds, Somethingawful, Miniclip... shows no equivalent and, quite honestly, I don't see the point of having it here.--Vertigo200 01:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Section about dispute between SA and eBW?

It occurs to me that it might not be a bad idea to have a section summarizing the evident dispute between eBW and SA. There appears to be a lot of misinformation floating about from both sides. Does someone with to draft a section here? A good place to start would probably be when the image in question was first created. I'd do it myself, but I'm not familiar enough with the issue. 07:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's fairly simple. Ebaums World stole images and flash animations from Somethingawful, removed the watermarks, replaced them with their own, then added a script to their front page to attempt to DDoS Somethingawful. That's pretty much why there's a dispute. Jtrainor 21:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Pursuit Force' advert stolen by eBaum's

This MUST be added.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/copisinsane.html

This video here is an advert for a game on the PSP called 'Pursuit Force'. However, eBaum has edited it by removing the title at the end, and slapping on his logo on the bottom. This elaborates on the fact that eBaum's World steals most of 'their' work. The company (bigbig, I believe) should really file a lawsuit or something. The URL to the orignal with ending credits here posted here:

http://gameads.gamepressure.com/tv_game_commercial.asp?ID=3188

Verify/NPOV/Cleanup

What is the source on the employee count and owning an office building? And is the office building owned by the corporation or one of the directors/founders/owners? And what does "own" mean in this sense? Including the purchase price of the building offers indications about the corporation's revenue, but if depending on the payment structure, that could be very misleading, especially if the company isn't the one purchasing the property.

All the references to the founder as the operator of the site and sole contributor seem to contradict the 20 employees count. Additionally, it seems that the vast majority of stories (which aren't even encyclopedic to begin with) have real NPOV issues and were likely written by the site's owner. Dbchip 20:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 1[reply]

I DONT REALLY KNOW WHERE TO PUT THIS, HOPEFULLY SOMEONE CAN HELP ME OUT: eBaums world also needs to maintain a level of proffesionalism when dealing with their problems. I was trying to spread the word about the illegal actions of the site in their forums, and this is what i recieve from an admin: http://jamiemillar.com/jamiedump/banned.JPG

/\---professionalism? they're all volunteers, and what you all were doing was technically illegal. so why are you complaining?

Is that the kind of people who run those forums? That could be used as evidence as to what's wrong with the site. I don't think there is a POV problem in the article. Parts of it aren't written very well, but it just needs cleanup, and maybe a few more sources cited. eBaumsWorldsucks.com has quotes from many people whose work was published there without credit and without their permisson (as well as ignored requests to have them removed), and maybe links to the Something Awful updates explaining what happened. Chiphead 18:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more unverified information is not the solution to fixing this article. Dbchip 19:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current Protection

The site is currently under semi-protection due to rash vandalism due to the "attack" or "raid" on eBaums World. This is a good time to remind all that Wikipedia is not intended as a resource to "recruit people" to "attack" a website. If you have a meaningful edit to add to this article, check back later and the restriction should have been removed. Thank you. --Nick Catalano (Talk) 07:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention all people from YTMND, 4chan, SA, LUE, LL, AP, eBaum's, etc. Do NOT recruit soldiers here. If you want to do something to the Wiki, then go to my talk page and give me updates. If you guys somehow break the Internet, I'll write your article. - CorbinSimpson 08:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC) (PS: 402!)[reply]

Something Awful has absolutely nothing to do with this current circumstance. Neither SA nor the SA forums are involved in any way with this illegal action. To imply such without facts is not only irresponsible, but grossly misinformed. BallSack 14:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something Awful was involved. It was posted on the forums and stayed there almost the entire night. No doubt many of the invaders were from Something Awful. Proof of the involvement can be found in the "Ebaums World Raid" thread currently in the Something Awful gassed topic something awful forum.

Just to be clear, the thread was informing goons of the invasion, not recruiting. A massive majority of the responses assumed that it was a call to arms and mocked it as such. Even when the poster clarified his position, goons still attacked the thread as a call for a forum invasion, and the thread was gassed because such calls are against forum rules. SomethingAwful was not involved.

Something Awful has been stolen from by eBaum's, therefore Something Awful is inherently involved in the situation regardless of the number of users from Something Awful that are invading (assuming that there is at least 1 invader from Something Awful, something that we can generally agree is true.) and to say otherwise is to say that YTMND is not involved (even though not all of YTMND users are part of the invasion)

Just to say that 4chan is an anonymous imageboard without registration; while there may have been recruiting in the Random board it was not sanctioned at all by the moderators. 4chan does not support or condone forum invasions or DDoS attacks. That having been said... a good number of /b/tards were part of the raid, although YTMND and 4chan share some userbase.66.31.101.67 07:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Anonymous 4channer[reply]

Sign your comments, please. If you have anything at all that is verafiable, then put it on User:CorbinSimpson/eBaum with a link and a signature. If there's enough information, I will compile it into a new article. - CorbinSimpson 21:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebaum removed from friends

I just had a looksee over at fark.com and noticed that the link to ebaumsworld under the 'site friends' side tab had indeed been removed. Possibly retalitory? A big coincidence because according to the artilce users of YTMND were recuiting users of various websites, one of them being fark. --guest--

I e-mailed Fark's admin Drew to ask him why ebaumsworld was a friend on Sunday, in light of the events and the fact that fark.com is a banned word on ebaumsworld (as reported in this article). He said didn't realize that last part. I think you're right and it was removed as of Monday morning. No idea how many others e-mailed him, possibly a few. I think this might be worth editing the article about. Stevemcl 16:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luelinks?

doesnt exist foo

This is Wikipedia, not Whatever-you-want-reported-pedia, so "secret" websites such as LUELinks, WDMA and GSD do indeed exist, and we can make articles about them if they are verifiable and notable. Ashibaka tock 01:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADD LUELINKS!!!! They deserve credit.

Warning Message

Any chance we can rephrase or remove the 'no recruit' warning message. It sounds really rude and snarky--Virulent 78 02:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it is needed (or useful) right now. Removing. Ashibaka tock 02:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article on eBaums invasion

I found an article earlier detailing the attacks on the eBaums site as they happened. Would the link to that article be appropriate for addition to this Wikipedia article under the External Links Section? CeeWhy 04:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LUEbaumsLAND

In response to the accusations that Eric Bauman steals content from other sites, a user at LUElinks put forward the idea to create a site which completely mimic's eBaum'sWorld except it gives credit to the authors of the content.

From the user "PillarOWang": someone should make a site with all of the ebaum's material, putting new watermark over the old one, and start getting ad revenue for it. Since the guy stated that he believe everything on the internet should be of the free domain, then thre's no reason for him to take any action.

The idea was received extremely well by the community and within minutes, the user "Jezterman Exe" annoucned that he has applied for the site http://www.luebaumsland.com and he will attempt to follow-through on the idea.

Eric Bauman Responds

There is now an official response from Bauman on his web site. [5] The Wikipedia article has been updated to reflect his response and views on how he uses the content on his site. He gives a link to a definition of Cyberterrorism from a non-government site [6] whose definition of "cyberterrorism" differs greatly from the Wikipedia article. While Eric Bauman neither mentions YTMND nor Lindsay Lohan, he does provide a vague link to the animation in question (albeit his own watermarked one).

His claim of vandalism is technically true but without merit - the vandalism consisted of two pieces of paper being taped (scotch tape) onto the front door of his 'corporate HQ'. There are pictures if you can find them but the ytmnd that showed this was deleted (the image is here: [7]). FireballX301 01:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maker of the animation sends C&D, apparently

"I am now sending a formal cease and desist letter via certified mail."

from http://ytmnd.com/sites/profile/190419, comments section. Maybe this should be added to the article when unprotected? Tokakeke 00:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eBaum is a stupid faggot!

eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot! eBaum is a stupid faggot!