Talk:Daniel Brandt/Main

Post-Rewrite Rant

For anyone who cares, I've rewritten this article, and not because it simply wasn't funny, though that was the main reason. It quite frankly read like a childish, petulant, moronic rant. Also, it was originally sporked from "another website," and therefore had originality issues.

The subject of the article, despite what the Wikipedians believe, does not deserve that sort of treatment here any more than he deserves the treatment he's received at Wikipedia. Personally, I don't care what he's done to "out" various Wikipedians. "Outing" is the least they should get. "Shooting" would be more appropriate.

As I've already stated on my very own User Page, Uncyclopedia should not be some sort of dumping ground for Wikipedia's PIKACHU emotional baggage, and it shouldn't be a place for Wikipedians to play out their twisted revenge fantasies against their supposed enemies. It should only be a place for Uncyclopedians to play out their twisted revenge fantasies against their supposed enemies. If someone wants to play out his or her twisted revenge fantasies against me, fine - as long as they're a bona fide Uncyclopedian, not some PIKACHU Wikipedia sock puppet.

Finally, at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I believe that the author of the original version of this article placed it here as a form of revenge against this website, against us, for treating him and his fellow sufferers with disrespect during the Tourette's Syndrome article dispute. Assuming he was aware of Uncyclopedia's nonexistent Google rankings, it seems likely that he intended to notify Brandt of the article's existence just before the situation at Wikipedia got completely out of hand, in the hopes that Uncyclopedia would be included in legal actions directed against Wikipedia. I have nothing against Tourette's Syndrome sufferers, and in fact I originally sympathized with this one, though I didn't make a point of saying so. But in the end, what did we get from him? More twisted revenge fantasies. All in a day's work for the fine folks at Wikipedia.

And as for Daniel Brandt, I sincerely believe the Wikipedians are screwing us. Why? Because they're grievously risking our privilege of anonymity over a petty, gutter-sniping attempt at "payback" over something that was their PIKACHU fault from the word Go. Anonymity on the internet is something to be cherished and treasured, not blithely put at grave risk whenever there's an idiotic score to settle. The so-called "people" involved in the Brandt dispute are ruining it for everyone else, especially us, and we should be fighting them, not joining them. We should be fighting all of them.

Not long ago, some Wikipedians attacked me because they thought I was someone who had criticized them. Well, screw 'em. If they really want to attack me, let them attack me for this. They may revert me, they may ban me, but they can't deny the reality of their PIKACHU behavior. I pray for the day when Uncyclopedia will finally be free of them and their... wait, I guess I've probably used the phrase "twisted revenge fantasies" too many times already.

Whatever.

 c • > • cunwapquc? 04:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, you seemed a bit all over the place there, care to clarify? User:Jsonitsac/sig14:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Flamewar (of sorts)

--Actually, I created the article for one good reason only...because the entire internet takes the piss out of Daniel Brandt, and Uncyclopedia, a site that takes the piss out of everything, wasn't doing it! I did NOT do it as an act of "revenge" against Uncyclopedia! In fact, if you actually READ the Talk section of the Tourette Syndrome article, you will see that I conceed at the end, and even suggest some new things for the article to take on board! I am very insulted that you would think this is some sort of "twisted revenge fantasy", and even more insulted that you did not even attempt to actually CONTACT me to ask me about this. I only came back here because I wanted to see how the article was progressing, only to find the entire talk section turned into a rant about me and how Daniel Brandt is being treated unfairly. Brandt brought everything upon himself! He goes on an on about "privacy" on the internet, but there is no such thing anymore, and then he makes himself even more of a net icon by proclaiming his hatred of Google and Wikipedia! If he wanted privacy so much, he should have kept quiet.

I think you will also find that completely "blanking" an article that is a work in progress is against the rules at Uncyclopedia. You probably were not aware that more than one person has been working on this article since I created it, and you changed the entire context of the piece. If you wish to change the article, I suggest putting it up for deletion! --DrPoodle 23:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't "blank" the article, I rewrote it. WIP's are supposed to be finished within 30 days, and I gave you more than 30 days. Also, AnonIP's don't count as "persons" around here, so... for all intents and purposes, it was you and you alone. I might just take you up on the deletion thing, for all the good it will do. And above all, the loss of personal privacy isn't something people should just accept. It's something that people should put a stop to.

But let's forget the "wikilawyering" for a minute, and let me just ask you this: Do you believe it's possible to be funny without being nasty and vulgar? I do, and I'm not even the one trying to convince people that nastiness and vulgarity are an uncommon trait among a particular group of people. What's more, the incessant baiting and abuse of Brandt by you Wikipedia types hasn't exactly helped matters much over there, has it? Just think about what you're doing. There's still time to do the right thing.  c • > • cunwapquc? 04:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you even read Uncyclopedia? The vast majority of articles are insulting/nasty/vulgar towards either one person or a group of people. The constant baiting of Brandt at wikipedia has got somewhere, because he kept threatening legal action, something which was impossible for him to do, and so he is now blocked for an indefinate period of time. These "AnonIP's" that you speak of, sure they don't technically count as people, but they do count as contributors! One of them actually expanded the article a lot, whereas others did minor changes. You cannot just ignore their contributions and say I did the entire thing, because that is blatantly not true. I gave up arguing on the Tourettes article because most people were against my view, but I am going to stand my ground here, because I am the creator of this article, and I'm not letting one of Brandt's fans ruin it. By all means change the article, but do it by making it a COMPLETE parody of the wikipedia one, as I set out to do in the first place. --DrPoodle 09:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?

For what it's worth, I think the writing quality of Some User's version is a lot higher, and is a lot funnier. The other version just seems way too random. Why parody wikipedia's article on him when we could have something original of our own instead? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 09:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

(Comment from S.U.): Thanks, Spang, I appreciate that! But I'm less concerned about my version being restored than I am about Wikipedians using this site for revenge purposes that should have nothing to do with us. I know they're allowed to do it, it's just that I have my reasons (well-known, of course) for not liking it much. I wanted to give DrPoodle here a chance to explain himself, and he's done that. He's on the record now.

First, I wouldn't say the "vast majority" of articles are insulting and vulgar towards a particular individual or group, like the Tourette's article is, but that's unimportant. The point is that Brandt is a special case, and anyone who denies that just isn't being honest. For one thing, he has a legitimate case. So this article puts Uncyclopedia at risk, at least in my opinion, and it just isn't worth it. Second, if DrPoodle is trying to infer that banning someone for any reason whatsoever is some kind of accomplishment, then he's crazier than we thought he was. (Hopefully he didn't mean it that way.) Third, I wasn't ignoring the contributions of the AnonIP's, I was just pointing out that DrPoodle is the only one with enough guts to associate even a screen-name with the article. Normally I'd commend him for that, but that's hard to do in this case. Fourth, I'm not a "fan" of Daniel Brandt - sympathizing with someone on principle doesn't make you a fan or even a "supporter," at least not in my universe. Maybe it does in Wikipedia's, but really, I wish to God that Brandt and the whole issue would just go away forever and not come back. But the Wikipedia lynch-army isn't allowing that to happen, are they? They're very arrogant people, in my opinion - they can't seem to see any difference between their site, which can be edited anonymously by anyone, and an established real-world encyclopedia or news organization that does real research and real journalism with real journalists using real names. It would all be hysterically funny if it weren't for the fact that they're putting everyone's anonymity at risk by that very arrogance. Hell, they've already lost one of their best admins over this fiasco - how long before Uncyclopedia starts losing good admins too?

Still, I'm a semi-reasonable guy most days, so let's rewind a little bit here, OK? How about we compromise: We'll turn the main article into a disambiguation page, we'll call my version Daniel Brandt (non-person), DrPoodle's version will be Daniel Brandt (wacko troll crackpot) or Daniel Brandt (Wikipedia version) or whatever you (DrPoodle) prefer, and we'll also have another one called Daniel Brandt (video game). We'll also link to the Wikipedia article, and we can add more versions too - the more the merrier, in my opinion.

Whaddya say, DrPoodle? I'll even apologize for being such a dickhead towards you, would that help?  c • > • cunwapquc? 23:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you write your Daniel Brandt (non person) thing, and I'll change this article to my own title. We'll have to turn this "Daniel Brandt" article into a "portal" to the other Daniel Brandt articles. Hmmmm video game you say? Sounds like we need to make a Zork! Daniel Brandt version... --DrPoodle 00:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad we have sorted this all out!

Me too! And without admin intervention (technically Spang wouldn't count because he wasn't an admin when he got involved)... That I certainly never could have hoped for! OK, I officially apologize for being a dickhead towards you. (I even "lited" the expletives in the earlier bits on this page!)  c • > • cunwapquc? 02:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation notice

I like the disambiguation notice at the bottom of this page. Is there a template for this? If not, maybe this could be turned into one? --cScott 03:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, there's Template:Disambig, which is one of those randomized <option> thingies that changes every time you load it - like this:

This is a disambiguation page. Or is it? It could be a hit record, a chocolate bar, or it could even be God. Worship this page.

...But if you want to create another one that isn't randomized, I doubt that most of the admins would mind all that much. Still, you might want to ask one of them first, just to be on the safe side - there have been some anti-template rumblings from them in recent months, and not entirely without justification! Otherwise, you could always just lift the HTML from this article.  c • > • cunwapquc? 03:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware of the random one. It's amusing. I like the one on this page too though, so I did make a copy of the html, in case I ever need it. --cScott 04:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed the "Daniel Brandt to Daniel Brandt (wacko crackpot troll)" to "Daniel Brandt (True Version) - Preferred by Google". A site like Uncyclopedia shouldn't mention the evil wikipedians who copy us. I think "Preferred by Google" is funnier.

New Layout

Just my opinion, but I think the disambiguation page should be something like the "Jesi" pages. I.E, saying that there are different versions of Daniel Brandt, all claming to be the "real" version, but for some reason or another, they do not have solid evidence. I haver changed my article name to "True Version", the secondary article to "Anti Version", and the game version to "Video Game Version".

If some user has something against this, please talk to me about it here, because I respect your views, but I disagree on how the article was looking i.e, just a list of other articles. I think we could have some fun with this article, making up new versions of "Daniel Brandt", all claiming to be the real one but with significant drawbacks.

Cheers --DrPoodle 20:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this what the Wikipedia folks call "wheel warring"?

Here's my take on it: You should be allowed to call your version pretty much whatever you want, within reason. However, for most "disambiguated" articles, I don't believe it's considered proper Wiki style (AFAIK) to include the word "version" in the parenthetical title. That implies we're not writing on separate topics, when (IMHO) we do want to give that impression, even if it's untrue... What's more, AFAIK there are no, as in zero, articles on Uncyclopedia called "Whatever (true)" or "Whatever (true version)" - this one would be the first (though there are a few articles called "Whatever: The Truth"). That would probably be seen as hubris on your part and not a super-wonderful thing to do, though of course the ubiquitous "nobody cares" philosophy would surely apply also.

Beyond that, the whole issue of renaming articles you didn't write (without prior OK from the writer or an admin) is a slippery slope. Obviously it's fine if you're correcting spelling/punctuation/capitalization, but changing the meaning is a different story. Regardless of whether or not those articles are reactions to something you've written, that seems like sour grapes - even Nerd42 doesn't do stuff like that (though I'm sure he's wanted to many times). It might even be considered worse to the admins than a "hostile" rewrite, which is what happened to you in this case, because the rewrite doesn't create a risk of a double-redirect and potentially affect other pages. And even if you overlook the whole "mutual dissing" aspect of it all, I've already gone out and edited a couple of other articles to link to those titles. If I just accept the page moves, then I'll have to go change them again, and then the admins will get upset because they're having to check what I did again, and that wastes their time. More importantly it makes it look like we can't work these things out on our own, and are therefore "troublemakers." And let's face it, we're both presumably considered troublemakers already, justifiably or not.

So I'll wait a bit in case you reconsider, but ultimately I'm almost certainly going to prefer to have the two versions I've done to go back the names they had yesterday. And of course, if the Wikipedia people ever notice this stuff and decide to launch another sock puppet attack, all bets are off.

As for your title, that's up to you, but if it were me, I'd call it something other than "Daniel Brandt (true)," no matter how much I believed in the veracity of it.

Meanwhile, if we do enough additional versions, maybe we could even turn the whole thing into its own namespace, with its own Main Page and everything! I could see having Daniel Brandt (children's story), Daniel Brandt (restaurant chain), Daniel Brandt (major world religion), etc., ad nauseum. But I'll admit, a nice Jesii-like navigation template would probably be the appropriate first step. Anyway, good luck with whatever!  c • > • cunwapquc? 03:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Aren't we writing on similar topics though? They are all different views/versions of Daniel Brandt. The only reason I think "version" is a better word to use is because you wrote the video game article, and I saw the potential for doing something like the "Jesi" (different "versions" of Jesus). If you want to change the names then do so, but at least keep them all with first letter capitals...call it a very mild cas of OCD, but I hate articles that have titles like "Daniel Brandt (video game whatever)" when the a more aesthetically pleasing title is "Daniel Brandt (Video Game Whatever)". I think we should first agree on how to display the titles. e.g. "Daniel Brandt (xxx)", "Daniel Brandt / xxx", "Daniel Brandt - xxx" or whatever and then start building up the structure of the project. --DrPoodle 21:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Brandtopedia

Sure, we're writing on the same topic, but this is Uncyclopedia and we don't follow logic around here. Logic sucks. And I'm sorry about the capitalization of words within parentheses, but that's for consistency with every single one of the articles in Template:Wargame, which I intend to add the video game article to as soon as things have stabilized somewhat. Anyway, I won't change your titles, and you can wikify links to my titles any way you want if you should ever link to them (and those of anyone else who wants to play), but I'd just prefer to follow Uncyclopedia conventions in this case, as in most cases actually. Call me "loyalist"... Not that I still have much reason to be one at this point...

But more to the point, I can't imagine anyone not liking the way the main article looks now, so hey, have a field day! I wouldn't call it a "project" myself though, yet - that's more of a Wikipedian term anyway - but at least now it sort of looks like one, I guess. Just remember, regardless of how we feel about ol' Dan, the point is that threats to anonymity are a Bad Thing, and both sides probably deserve a certain amount of lambasting and lampooning for making those threats real. Anyway, take care!  c • > • cunwapquc? 05:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OMG! Absolutely LOVE the new layout/style!!! Amazing! I think we should sort out the colour scheme so it goes with the style of Daniel Brandt's sites (e.g. childish, bland colors, crappy drawings...). Off topic now, what is your beef with Wikipedia? You seem to go on and on about it like it is the worst thing ever, and yet I find it a pretty useful resource. --DrPoodle 11:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh... how's about...

The Wikipedia-Watch Accountability Project Help harass Wikipedia administrators Many of the 900 Wikipedia administrators can be identified through advanced stalking and illegal techniques. This will discourage editors from applying for adminship, and encourage others to be less considerate of those who would rather not be watched for the rest of their lives. We need your help The True Version               The Non-Person            The Video Game Letters to Wikipedia's lawyer

--KATIE!! 19:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone fix this...

Which moron redirected the page the Britney Spears...and somehow managed to protect it...

Yeh, I get it now...lol

Ladies

Can we quit the revert war, nobody gains anything by it and it generates an air of "nastiness" that we could well do without. If you can't agree on what content should be on the page there are numerous Admins who could make a decision for you. Try Brad or Tompkins or whoever if you need to seek a way of bringing this to a conclusion. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I only objected to my website being compared to "Wikipedia", and saying that it is for people who want to be on Brandt's Hivemind, which is not the case. It is just that there is no reliable source of info on Brandt anymore, mainly because the Wikipedia entry on him is constantly vandalised and changed, and other info about him is removed because it is not "notable".

I accepted Some user's point about the CCSA and so added a link back to Uncyclopedia and this article on the Brandtopedia:About page, saying all credit for the name goes to you guys. He also said that it was not original, and didn't count as "content". My response to this is, yes, the idea is original though the name might not be, and as for content...it was started last week for crying out loud!

Therefore I believe the current comment is fine. It addresses the link to the real Brandtopedia, and the fact that it needs content all in one. --DrPoodle 00:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, your attribution is acceptable, but how is it that you're the one who gets to define what the "truth" is? And what "real" means? Who put you in charge of truth and reality? So you started your own wiki to do Brandt-bashing on - big whoop. It doesn't impress me, and I doubt it would even if you did have some content on it. After all, you've never written an original article for Uncyclopedia either, have you? (And no, sporkings from WP don't count, at least not in my universe.) Even if you had, it shouldn't matter - long-term, well-established users here aren't supposed to use Uncyc to promote their own private websites in main article space, so why should anyone let you?
But okay, fine, as long as the attribution is there, I'll stop bitching about it, at least until your next round of inevitable troublemaking. Just don't make the main heading a link to your site - please leave that as-is (Britney Spears was Mhaille's idea, after all). And if you ever contribute a real, legitimate, non-huff-worthy article here someday, maybe we'll talk about further compromises - I'm certainly not an unreasonable guy (even if Mhaille obviously is). But I do have one question: If you don't want to be "Hive-Minded," what the hell are you doing this for? What other possible reason could you have? And don't give me that "Brandt takes the piss" crap - he's never done anything to you, unless there's something you're not telling us. And it's not like you've kept your own identity hidden anyway, is it? So spill it, Adrian! End the mystery for us! Why are you doing this?  c • > • cunwapquc? 06:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is a parody site. None of the articles are "real", and yet my site will hopefully become a large collection of info about Brandt, so that is how it is real! Never written my own article??? Shows how much research you did! Happy-land is about 95% mine. I started it and a load of people continued it. As for the "advertising", there are loads of sites being linked to all over Uncyclopedia and there are loads linking to the "real" article on Wikipedia. I thought it would be funny to have a similar link to the Brandtopedia, but obviously this has got lost on you. I have never caused any trouble on Uncyclopedia. The "Tourettes incident" was an honest mistake, because it was my first time on a wiki, and I didn't know how I would go about doing something about it. The debate in the Talk section that followed involved lots of people and was valid, many people speaking FOR my view as well as against, so that cannot count as trouble-making. As I have said, Brandt is a "notable person" on the internet, and many people want to find out more about him and his antics. They all find the Wikipedia article on him, which has been chopped and changed so much and vandalised so often that it cannot count as a valid resource anymore. It also doesn't branch out into the "facts people want to know" because Wikipedia is only interested in his Bio, nothing else. That is why me and some other people set up the Wiki. --DrPoodle 20:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr P: I think you're a nice enough guy, but I don't see how you don't see this as link spamming and/or advertising. Imagine someone that starts Poodle-Watch.org and posts a link to the site on poodles. Is that:

1. Advertising
2. Link Spamming, or
3. Totally logical.

If you took the purple pill (the last one), on what grounds do you consider it totally logical? Applicable? (uncyc doesn't require nor expect any sources) Helpful? (Tell me how linking to a new site with basically no content helps the joke) Related? (again, same as "Helpful").

Basically, it's just not there yet. Also, the link is factual information without sufficient information to help with the joke...yet. Maybe, one day, it would work. But not today, and likely not in the next year, unless it's a very active wiki. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 22:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I had forgotten about Happy-Land. Before my time, I guess... But anyhoo, like I say, I'm standing down as long as the page's "status quo" is maintained. (Insert random expletive here...)  c • > • cunwapquc? 05:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the link is similar to those you see to Wikipedia all over Uncyclopedia but I'll take it down for now, and put it up when more content is added. That at least seems fair.--DrPoodle 09:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That isn't the same thing. None of us own wikipedia, and it's linked because it's applicable for explaining some jokes. Look at the featured article we have up today - Voynich Manuscript - and tell me if explaining the joke through wikipedia was valuable to the article. I believe that the link was quite applicable and helpful, especially since I didn't know what it was until I read the wikipedia article. Yes, I am a human with limited knowledge, even if nobody believes me. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 12:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yah, resolution. Everybody dance now....... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)