Registration has been disabled and the moderation extension has been turned off. Contact an admin on Discord or EDF if you want an account. Also fuck bots.
[[User:FlynnR13|FlynnR13]] ([[User talk:FlynnR13|talk]]) 12:56, 16 December 2021 (EST)
[[User:FlynnR13|FlynnR13]] ([[User talk:FlynnR13|talk]]) 12:56, 16 December 2021 (EST)
:Page looks better, and sorry for getting aggressive earlier, I was pissed off that Keegan's white knights tried raiding several pages ([[user:Darubrub]] comes to mind) and caused enough chaos to get his page locked.
:[[User:TwisterTesticles|TwisterTesticles]] ([[User talk:TwisterTesticles|talk]]) 17:12, 18 December 2021 (EST)
::It's all good. [[User:FlynnR13|FlynnR13]] ([[User talk:FlynnR13|talk]]) 21:00, 20 December 2021 (EST)
== regarding this page ==
it should be edited to either be more praiseful or neutral, given the fact that garrett is a redeemed lolcow and has helped others by exposing people like keegan and geoshea. [[User:Lebasedfaggot|Lebasedfaggot]] ([[User talk:Lebasedfaggot|talk]]) 21:37, 1 January 2022 (EST)
:That would completely destroy the articles intended purpose. I know that Garrett has grown up and all, but ED is about documenting drama and turning it into something funny, and revising it into a "positive" page would make it, well... not funny anymore. So I say leave it as is, and if anything, the Redeemed template will be enough to certify this page as just a "back-in-the-day" attack article. Furthermore, if the ED Sysops see fit, they can remove the page if they feel it has next to no significance anymore, but they've only done this with a few attack articles in the past and would have already done so with any other page with a "Redeemed" subject. [[User:FlynnR13|FlynnR13]] ([[User talk:FlynnR13|talk]]) 15:50, 3 January 2022 (EST)
Latest revision as of 20:50, 3 January 2022
Hi, it was proven a while back that apparently this was actually an attack article. I happen to have regular contact with the person this article pokes fun at, and he has changed a lot. Prior to the article being made he was just a generic GoAnimator who later left after some of the essential features were removed, but people trolled him for no reason. Later on people used this article to dox him and all that, and that pretty much made things worse. So yeah, I'm 100% positive this was originally an attack article. --Professional1337h4xx0r (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2021 (EDT)
the page is probably going to stay similarly to SammyClassicSonicFan's situation, but the redeemed template always exists since the main sperg here is keegan salisbury, especially when that fag admitted to editing the article. apparently that User:FlynnR13 person knows garrett so we may get more input from him- thought he was a white-knight or tricked at first but now i'd like to hear his input.TwisterTesticles (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2021 (EST)
Flynn Here
The edits I reinstated were taken from way back in 2017, when Garrett was still considered lolcow material. Basically, Dax and I are good friends, and he's been open enough to tell me his side of the story when we first started talking. Seeing as though some of y'all have made it clear that Garrett long since changed his ways, I've got enough reason to make no further edits to this page.
Page looks better, and sorry for getting aggressive earlier, I was pissed off that Keegan's white knights tried raiding several pages (user:Darubrub comes to mind) and caused enough chaos to get his page locked.
It's all good. FlynnR13 (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2021 (EST)
regarding this page
it should be edited to either be more praiseful or neutral, given the fact that garrett is a redeemed lolcow and has helped others by exposing people like keegan and geoshea. Lebasedfaggot (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2022 (EST)
That would completely destroy the articles intended purpose. I know that Garrett has grown up and all, but ED is about documenting drama and turning it into something funny, and revising it into a "positive" page would make it, well... not funny anymore. So I say leave it as is, and if anything, the Redeemed template will be enough to certify this page as just a "back-in-the-day" attack article. Furthermore, if the ED Sysops see fit, they can remove the page if they feel it has next to no significance anymore, but they've only done this with a few attack articles in the past and would have already done so with any other page with a "Redeemed" subject. FlynnR13 (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2022 (EST)
