Talk:Daniel Brandt/Menu

Forgive me for suggesting this, but doesn't the use of the term "illegal techniques" ruin the humor value of this here menu thingie? The "techniques" Brandt is using are hardly illegal in the United States, which is where both Brandt and the Wikimedia Foundation are located - they're practically encouraged. This just strikes me as churlishness, possibly even a "legal threat," albeit a groundless one. When one side in a dispute resorts to this sort of partisan recontextualization, it drastically reduces whatever joke/parody aspect you might otherwise have had... Those who know something about the situation, but are otherwise unbiased/neutral, may turn against you if they see it as an insult to their intelligence. It's almost as bad as User:DrPoodle's insistence on calling his version the "True Version" - but at least in his case the bias is so blatant as to be funny in itself, even if people are really laughing at DrPoodle's presumptuousness rather than his version of the article, which (as I've already stated elsewhere) is far too nasty to be funny.  c • > • cunwapquc? 02:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a joke. Exaggeration is teh funz0rz. And if your (video game) is Brandt-sympathetic, it's only fair that we have something that's Wikipedian-sympathetic.

Wait, insult to "intelligence"? Where'd that come from? --KATIE!! 18:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

From me? There's nobody else here... I'm just sayin', Wikipedia loyalists can't possibly be objective about this anymore. If that's your audience, then fine, but preaching to the choir should be reserved for Wikipedia. Anyone who does strive for objectivity on this issue is likely to see it as you vs. him, which almost automatically makes him look like the underdog, and therefore the more sympathetic figure. Daniel Brandt (video game) is actually much more neutral than you think, because it paints Brandt as being much more powerful than he actually is. Wikipedia may be clueless, but Wikipedia is also the victim.

Regardless, anyone who's familiar with the situation isn't going to see "illegal techniques" as a deliberate or humorous exaggeration - phrases just like that have been used many times on Wikipedia lately to describe what Brandt is doing, by people whose sense of humor is a lot less well-developed than ours is (to put it charitably). Readers will feel like you're trying to manipulate them, and the more intelligent people will see right through it, and you'll lose them because of it.

Last but not least, we both know fairness doesn't enter into any of this. You have the tools to delete Daniel Brandt (video game) any time you like, but I don't have the tools to delete anything. And now the original page is a protected redirect, which is just silly. Besides, I'm only doing this to prove a point, and the point is not about Brandt, it's about me - and I hope that you, DG and Mindspillage are starting to see what that point is by now. If not, then the situation really is hopeless, most likely. But at least I've gotten over the initial Kafkaesque bewilderment of it all, finally! That's always good!  c • > • cunwapquc? 03:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You're reading too much into this. Dr Poodle said something about imitating the way Brandt does stuff, so I went to the site to copy the color scheme for Brandtopedia. Then I realized I suck at CSS and such, and just copied the table. Those lines are just what I came up with then. I like to go the brief route, so this a one joke horse: BRANDT STALKS PEOPLE LOLOLOLOL. --KATIE!! 14:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine. I can certainly wait a while longer for y'all to realize what's (not) going on! I was just trying to look at the big picture, that's all. My point still stands regarding what will happen when Brandt finds out about this, though - there's a good chance he'll start "hive-minding" the admins here at Uncyc too, it'll be perfectly legal as long as he only quotes public sources and doesn't violate any copyrights, and let's face it - some of the admins here might not have covered their tracks sufficiently.  c • > • cunwapquc? 15:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Subpage

• Does this subpage go on the main article ? MadMax 06:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Depends on what we're calling the "main article." Right now, the main article is a redirect to Wikipersecution Complex - it used to be a redirect to Britney Spears, and "Brandtopedia" before that. I have no interest in the menu being incorporated into any of the other articles as long as the word "illegal" is used (see above), but it might work in an article called "HiveMind," if you wanted to write one. HTH?  c • > • cunwapquc? 07:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)