Talk:David Thorne (writer)

Self-biography debate

This reads like a bio written by the author himself. "It is this sense of normality that has made him one of the most interesting and exciting writers on the internet today." That's hardly unbiased. Needs clean up.

Have you ever red something by him? Definitly do that, and you'd be writing the same thing. I'll drop you an example http://www.27bslash6.com/strata.html

Beside this, of course something, somewhere should be rewritten in a more neutral and professional way, as personal judgements are not welcome on a encyclopedia. 93.32.33.164 (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Simon Dempsey (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC) This article needs to be locked. There are too many people, one troll in particular, adding personal comments of a degrading nature based purely on the fact they dislike the person highlighted. While I did not create this article, I have edited it without any bias towards the subject. David Thorne is certainly an interesting character that has caused some ruckus on the internet of late but this article needs to remain fact based without slander or personal attacks on him.

I'm sorry, but to claim that you have edited without bias is laughable. You have admitted having a personal relationship with the subject, and you have repeatedly removed any edit that attempts to offer some balance to the article. The recent edits may not have been constructively carried out, however sources were provided, were factual, and in my opinion offered some much needed balance. I intend to restore much of the recently removed material and I hope to do so without being reported for vandalism as you did to one user. Thedarxide (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

@Thedarxide You say "balance" and that the "sources were factual" LOL!! The (now deleted) text read as a personal attack and the source linked to a wired article that had nothing to do with the article. How is that factual and without bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.231.88.204 (talk) 07:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the quotes from Marketing Mag. Thedarxide (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The content added was biased. Obviously by a disgruntled 27bslash6 reader. I do not have a personal relationship with the subject. That is a ridiculous comment. The text that was added: "Thorne's humor is autobiographical and cynical, expressing self-complacency and egotism. His writing is self-centered, narcissistic and focuses on deprecating and mocking other people, often his immediate family, work associates and customers." is pure bias and opinion. Just because you share the same tall poppy syndrome does not make it factual or relative content to be included. Simon Dempsey (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"I do not have a personal relationship with the subject. That is a ridiculous comment." - you stated on my talk page that you work with David Thorne. Thedarxide (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no personal relationship, as you put it, with David Thorne. I do know him through a work connection but we have never met. Adelaide is small enough that anybody in the same industry has a connection. I do not see how this is pertinent or makes me unbias apart from the fact that I do actually like what he writes and we are from the same city and industry. I have worked on a project with Thorne in the past but so did two thousand other people and it had nothing to do with writing or his website. He is a designer director by trade for an Adelaide agency which I have done contract work for. How does this make that a personal relationship? We do not cuddle. Simon Dempsey (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

So now you've never met, but you claim to own the copyright to this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:David_Thorne_27bslash6_photo.jpg? Thedarxide (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That image comes from his website and is in the public domain. A bot deleted the image so I uploaded it. Sue me. http://www.27bslash6.com/dt.html Simon Dempsey (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

I have decided to re-protect this page given the resumption of the edit-war. Please discuss the merits of the disputed content on this page instead of in revert summaries. Further edit-warring will result in blocks for those responsible.  Skomorokh  02:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Request ridiculous added content be deleted

The article (now locked) contains a line of text by a troll that links to a reference that has nothing to do with either David Thorne or the article regarding 27bslash6. The link is about a girl who became famous on the internet. The girl has nothing to do with 27bslash6 or David Thorne and is a *ridiculous addition* to the article. The user (203.45.210.58) seems to be using the article as a personal vendetta. It seems likely for having a comment deleted from the 27bslash6 webpage in question. I request the content "Comments can be left on the website, although it has been reported that notoriously David Thorne erases or modifies any remarks that criticize, mock or minimize the quality of his work. [9]" to be removed by administration. The text does not add to the article, is the users personal opinion, and has a reference that has nothing to do with the subject. Simon Dempsey (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Verifying the reference now, will remove unless it checks out.  Skomorokh  03:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference is to "Wired Magazine. 16.08. Internet Famous: Julia Allison and the Secrets of Self-Promotion", a copy of which here does not seem to mention Thorne of the website. If I am wrong, please point out where; until then I am removing the claim per the biographies of living persons policy.  Skomorokh  03:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the comment being deleted from your website. But seeing as you just admitted you delete comments I guess it wasn't a "ridiculous addition". Also, I didn't make that addition, I just reverted it when you deleted it. Anyway, it's your Wikipedia article so do what you like - I'm out. Cheers

I admitted I delete comments? I have nothing to do with the 27bslash6 website. I was stating that it is obvious your comments were based on you having comment deleted from that website and using this as your soap box. I assume by some of your comments you are insinuating that I am either the original creator of this page or David Thorne himself. In both cases you are incorrect.Simon Dempsey (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have nothing to do with the website how did you know that: a) I posted a comment on it, b) the comment was deleted and c) matched the IP address from the website to the one used here? Seems rather odd that someone with nothing to do with the website would know all of this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.14.29 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Your IP address shows up here as you are not registered. I simply assumed by the context of your added text (stating that David Thorne deleted comments from his website etc) that this is what has happened. It is hardly rocket science to work that out. You obviously left a comment which was deleted for whatever reason and came here to vent your anger. This was obvious from your text. It has nothing to do with IP addresses. Read my comments in context. Simon Dempsey (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, who cares? If I was David Thorne and had a website as successful as his has become and someone left a comment that was attacking or whatever, I would delete it to. I assume almost every webmater does. Am I missing the point here? I do not know the whole background story but the context is obvious. What was the comment that he deleted that got you so upset? Simon Dempsey (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record I didn't add anything to the article, I just reverted your edits that seemed to be heading towards making this a David Thorne circle-jerk, although, in hindsight it could and should have been done more constructively... apologies from me. The only reason I left a comment on his website, to be honest, was because I read here that he does edit and delete comments that aren't praising him. sure enough the comment was deleted. I don't really have a problem with David, the emails and articles on the website are very funny and original, but lets face it... "Thorne's humor is autobiographical and cynical, expressing self-complacency and egotism. His writing is self-centered, narcissistic and focuses on |deprecating and mocking other people, often his immediate family, work associates and customers." Anyway, as I said before I'm over it, after all.. "The internet is a playground." Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.14.29 (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

How exactly can something be both described as self deprecating and narcissistic? It is a conflicting description. Define which areas of his writing you see as narcissistic or do you just see the fact he has a website as narcissistic? Would this not apply to every blog on the internet? Should we change every article on wikipedia to include the text "this person writes, therefore is narcissistic"? Nonce. Simon Dempsey (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how anything (or is that anyone?) can be described as "self deprecating". The term seems to be nonsense. Perhaps they mean "self depreciating". Crafty (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Self deprecating is the correct terminology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deprecation Simon Dempsey (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Feh! I hardly think Wikipedia qualifies as a reliable reference. Crafty (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

interwiki

i removed it twice before and now it's in the article again so bots keep adding them in other wikis, too... all interwiki links do not exist or are wrong. de:Daviod Thorne is not not the same person as the one here. so please delete all interwikis again. --JD {æ} 21:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Site gone?

It seems that his site has either gone to Ethernet heaven or moved to another URL. Anyone have the answer? RoyBatty42 (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's back up now, which is why I removed the fact from the article. Temporary blips in hosting are not newsworthy Thedarxide (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Birthdate Changes by vandal

Have checked references to Thorne's birthdate and he was born February 13 1972 in Geraldton Western Australia. First child of 2 (one sister) to Welsh immigrant parents. Vandal 122.109.175.54 is changing dates for unknown reason. Suggest warn/ban. Singularityfield (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for these references? LinkedIn is a primary source and so isn't acceptable. A Google search seems to show a wider argument by individuals that Thorne's year of birth is 1968, and without a good source for either I'd strike it completely from the article. Rather than reporting users for vandalism, how about you back up your assertions? Thedarxide (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Will find the source again and reference it. One of the first links I just clicked on lists his age as 37 and this news article is from 2009 which correlates: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/Talker/2009/06/18/9855281-sun.html (about half way down). Singularityfield (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of the term "self-deprecating"

This word you use, I do not think it means what you think it means. He is a gifted writer, satirist, etc. etc. but it's clear from pretty much everything he writes, that humble he is not. --144.191.148.3 (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Gnillort

I am surprised that no one has noted that Gnillort (the girl's last name) is simply "trolling" spelled backward. Not sure where he got "Tabitha," but the last name is clearly part of the prank!