They're considering deleting the Wikipedia entry for "You're With Me, Leather." That doesn't seem right, and perhaps could use some assistance from you folk. [Wikipedia]
10:30 AM on Thu Mar 6 2008
By Leitch
1,407 views
52 comments









Comments
Wikipedia editors = High school AV club.
Unit of cultural speedy deletion.
Wikipedia always seems to get pissed at me when I put my name on Super Bowl winning teams or my dog's name under "famous golden retrievers"
Well, I guess the cat's out of the bag for one of my ultimate guilty pleasures on the Innertubes: The Wikipedia "articles for deletion" debates.
/Weak Keep, Not Notable
I heard Berman's attorneys sent Wikipedia a note saying they were going to sue them into bankruptcy if they didnt take it down.
I got 18 people trying to edit this entry and ... jesus christ.
How can we allow such an esteemed piece of American folklore to be ruthlessly deleted? Will they try to erase the American anthem, or George Washington's Wikipedia entry next?
Even work is not boring enough for me to want to read the Wikipedia Deletion Policy. But I generally live by the rule "there should be more rather than fewer YWML references on the interwebs."
Wikipedia: Where uptight nerd happens.
They wanted to delete YMWL, but the article on the ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was yesterday's front-page featured article.
Fucking nerds.
The result of the AfD discussion was keep, by the way.
@Mr. Pennsylvania: They removed the video of Berman talking about 'Duex Duex Duexs' I added to the Codeine page.
It looks like the decision was made to keep it late last month, but the "up for deletion" banner hasn't been taken down.
I found that someone had inserted their own little biography under a disambiguation page concerning a fairly common name, and I tacked on "suspected homosexual" in his list of accolades. It's been there since last August, and is probably my life's greatest achievement.
Next thing you know they'll be taking off Berman's outbusts on The Youtube.
Delete Nothing but cruft.
Jmlk17 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I for one will not stand for jmlk17's anti-cruft rhetoric, and neither should you.
What a bunch of fucking losers those wikipedia people are.
I think it's funny that so many of their pages have this banner that says "Wikipedia discourages trivia sections in articles", when the only fucking reason I use their site is to learn trivia.
Do they really want to start this war? I thought we had a truce.
Delete it? What are they, stupid? That's just stupid.
@War Penguin: I done fixed that little oversight.
@Mr. Pennsylvania: awesome. I'm going to have to put my dog under the famous lab section.
@Its The Beer Talking: What is the definition of irony?
[en.wikipedia.org]
@FuzzysFriedChicken: It's like the editors Don't want to have fun
@Its The Beer Talking: Michael Scott uses it to learn how to negotiate.
You're with me, Level 70 Fire Mage.
@Doyle McPoyle: Other then listing Billicks firing date weekly starting about week six Ive never done much editing.
Though I take complete credit for this one.
[en.wikipedia.org]
I say we mark this article for deletion
[en.wikipedia.org]
"guy that's been pretty nice to people for 27 years"
[citation needed]
"Wait, so how is this gossipy crap worthy of a Encyclopedia entry? It's shit like this that keeps me from feeling the least bit guilty when I mess with some other retarded Wikipedia webpage (like comically correcting dumbass comments on some frivolous actor bio). You want to be taken seriously? Erase bullshit like this. Sorry for the swears, but you have not earned respect for me not to use them if you permit mean-spirited stuff like this, and you obviously have for long enough for this to be a nice long entry. I don't care if the jag-offs at Gawker have a T-shirt for it. You don't know the whole story, so why permit this? This is totally uncool. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.200.148 (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
So now that we know what Berman's IP address is, the question is: what do we do with the info?
and on March 6, 2008 at 10:52 EST Deadspin began what will prove to be a long and protracted war against Wikipedia
@Its The Beer Talking:
Ain't that the truth
This article is a "keep"
The comments are a "strong keep"
@Sir Hotbod Handsomeface:
Man, that sounds like the kind of comment written by someone who'd call your boss at work to complain about something you wrote elsewhere on the web.
You know, I started reading Deadspin after the whole "You're with me, leather" bit, and I used Wikipedia to figure out what the whole YWML thing was all about.
Still demanding that when the "respected journalist" who shared this story with Will dies, we learn his name, a la Deep Throat.
"a guy that's been pretty nice to people for 27 years"
Berman is 52. I assume he didn't mean 27 years in a row.
Simple solution: we continue to monitor the entry, and if it is deleted, we simply sprinkle as many entries as possible with YWML.
@Mr. Pennsylvania: "Day 147...the Deadspin offensive continues...finally defeated 'List of Star Wars Characters Appearing in Both Cantina and Coruscant Bars'...many good men died...winter is settling in, and I miss my wife and child."
If Wikipedia's opinion of the phrase gets to you, Will, then I would advise you to steer clear of this month's Esquire magazine.
@Wyshynski: Many Bothans died to bring us this information.
"You're with meme, leather."
@Wyshynski: +1billion
@Secret Identity: uh oh, I may need a secret identity for quoting it
Fantastic, Wy-zerman.
@Barry Lutz: Please share.
@Wyshynski: this will probably end with us having to leave a large occupying force to police and ensure order within wikipedia
does this mean Deadspin will be opening up a Second Life Beureau?
@Mr. Pennsylvania:
The first warning was on February 22, 2008 at 4:12pm EST.
[deadspin.com]
@J. Henry Waugh: I don't remember exactly what it said, but one of their little "Rules" sprinkled throughout the magazine said something about YWML not being funny under in any context.
@Candygram: see also [deadspin.com]
4:45pm, the 12th of December 2006
As Robin Williams once said, "when you look up the definition of the word 'redundant' in the dictionary, it says 'redundant'."
I suppose it's up to me to link to this:
[www.theonion.com]
Comment on this post
Reply by EmailLogin with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?