WE MADE IT TO THE FINALS! NOW WE NEED YOUR VOTES MORE THAN EVER!!!Encyclopedia Dramatica is in contention for the 2nd Annual Mashable Open Web Awards for the wiki category. With your help, we can beat the Wikipedia menace! Plz vote for ED by going here; you can vote once per day, per email address, ballot stuffing encouraged! Just don't forget to confirm the vote via e-mail. VOTE OR DIE!!!
Talk:Cgad
From Encyclopedia Dramatica
Less furfags would mean removing a majority of the content, considering that it is just furfag drama.
We could always change the overall direction of the article towards KFoster who is the only one of Cgad's friends still involved, rather than on Cgad herself. TheAbsentee 03:32, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
thats what i wanted to suggest, but i didnt want to give that annoying dipshit what he wants... Snarkalicious 03:41, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
My sentiment exactly. The amount of shit on the guy is enough for his own article, but at the same time, giving him one, would just be letting him win. I've been trying to dig stuff up on Cgad to balance things out more, but all I can find is shit on Satellite Soda. TheAbsentee 03:55, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
wait a few more days until cgad is unbanned and see what happens. if KF is still acting butthurt and cgad comes to her senses, just make the article and dig up as much embarrassing crap as possible, if he gets an article, it better be a good one... we can move cgad's stuff to KF's article in a "how it started" section. If we are lucky tho, cgad will post a hugbox OMGDAMODSSUCK journal. Snarkalicious 04:13, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
Agreed.
I also thought about if we do make Kfoster an article, we should put his full name into the tags so that when any prospective employer looks up his name, the article will pop up in the search results and potentially kill any opportunity to be employed in the graphic art world. TheAbsentee 04:17, 2 September 2007 (CDT)
[edit] This article need major reworking or deletion
1. This article is about multiple people, and needs to focus more on one tartlet.
2. This article has not been updated or edited for a year.
3. This article seems to constitute a personal vendetta against a small group of people.
4. There is very little lulz or drama here.
5. This article needs to be rewritten in 3rd person. Please do not use "you" to address the tartlet(s) in question.This article is NOT an open letter to the tartlet.
Miskatonic 14:15, 28 August 2008 (CDT)
