Jump to content

Talk:Least I Could Do

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 199.229.242.196 (talk) at 07:54, 6 May 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rayne

I wanted to point out something in the summary. During the part where Rayne has the Keira Knightley thing he claims that he's never led a girl on, yet in some of the earlier strips he's actually told girls that he's loved them. It was more of a casual "love you too" type thing, like someone would say in return to someone else (rather than an actual confession of love), but that would still be considered leading someone on by most standards of society. It's one of the earlier black & white ones (before Cyndi Wang I believe). I'll try & locate the exact one & post it. It's a small thing, but it's still an inconsistency in the storyline. I know, I'm too much of a geek. The sad thing is I'm not even really that big of a fan & I'm pointing this out. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

The entry on Rayne is bloated again and must be trimmed down. I am trimming the section way down, removing duplicate information and plot bloat and will likely institute the same management over other characters in the near future.   Bodhisattvaspath • Talk • Contribs   21:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too Much Plot

I don't really mind, but this article focuses far to much on the plot and details about the characters. If any hardcore wiki people ever stumble onto this page you'll be hard pressed to defend against their arguments for cutting a good half of this stuff out. DevinOfGreatness (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Ferret Entertainment

Now that BFE handles stuff for more than one webcomic (also does the CAD-Premium animations, etc), do you think we should break it out into its own page? Discuss. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:66.32.118.156 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 2005 July.

I actually came to this page to see if there was a discussion on it, Since Blind Ferret Entertainment now handles Ctrl Alt Del, Player Verses Player and Least I Could Do and after bagging PVP will probably expand to include some more of the top webcomics they should have their own article even if for now it is just a brief description and a list of the properties they handle. --Seth Turner 12:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blind Ferret Entertainment is currently handling projects for Least I Could Do, Looking for Group, Ctrl+Alt+Del & PvP, including web broadcast episodes and is currently attempting to produce the Least I Could Do webcomic as a cartoon series with Teletoon.   Bodhisattvaspath • Talk • Contribs   06:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So is there anyone who disagrees that BFE should have their own page? Everything written so far seems to support it.IMHO (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Blind Faret on the business of webcomics link to a page of only 1 of their comics? 199.229.242.196 (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Porter's name

If Chad's middle initials are WM, is there a reason not to write it as "W.M."? JamesMLane 06:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it could be done like that, but Chad himself has always printed his name as WM., not W.M. ... to be honest I don't know if it's 2 middle names or if he uses both letters for the initials of one middle name, though I have always presumed that the former was the case. For now I will change it on the site to Chad WM. Porter. User:Arcidius 14:09, 26 September 2005

Account name

If you're going to make changes to this page, please try and remember to log in so everyone knows who is contributing. User:Arcidius 14:30, 8 December 2005

LFG comic

I can't find my WikiLogin details, call me lazy. Surely the LFG Comic should be linked at the bottom of the article, along with the other links? 84.12.23.104 11:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking For Group is not a spin-off from Least I Could Do. It is a separate project created by Sohmer and deSouza. There is some erroneous information in the sub-article as well, such as the reference to Cale'Anon being a "Blood Elf". That is not referenced anywhere in Looking For Group, nor do I recall either Sohmer or deSouza mentioning it on their forum. Bodhisattvaspath 05:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bra man

Why does Bra Man redirect here? --Eahiv 02:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article (or the strip) and you just might find out! AMK1211 04:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Run on sentences

Hey guys, the period is your friend. In normal writing there's usually no need for more than four or five commas in a single sentence. Poor writing cheapens the quality of the article, and I'm sure we all want the LICD article to appear to non-strip-readers in the best possible light. Osurak 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storylines

In the character section, I don't think it is necessary to get into each and every recent storyline since the skydiving arc. IMO this should be removed or placed into a separate section. Thoughts? Specifically I'm talking about the Rayne entry, which is about five times longer than any of the others. Osurak 23:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is very true. I've started cleaning up the entries, starting with the supporting cast. I'll be significantly shortening the entries over the new few weeks. Let leave this wiki page as an information page, not a novel version of the comic, ok people? Arcidius 06:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That Rayne entry is getting long again, with the addition of more and more recent storyline arcs. Contributors are also failing to correct for time-indicative information, such as "recent" and "recently". If there's going to be a "history of Rayne", it should either have its own section, or be a different page entirely (preferably the latter). Bodhisattvaspath 16:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The numerous mentions of Seline are particularly getting excessive. Especially since some of them were updated once and never again. As for the above suggestion, I would support alternatively suggestion creation of a separate "storyline" section, and a large reduction in the character description of Rayne and other characters. The storylines could be detailed outside of the descriptions of the characters. JeffHCross (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

http://www.leasticoulddo.com/index2.php?date=20030718
Friday 18 July 2003 - Trevor Adams
http://web.archive.org/web/20030727074317/http://leasticoulddo.com/
Saturday 19 July 2003
Trevor had to unexpectedly leave town tonight, and was unable to complete Saturday's strip. In which case, no new strip today. Trev will be back on Sunday, so we won't miss more than one.
Monday 21 July 2003
It appears that this weekend is the time for news.
Due to personal issues and family obligations, Trevor will no longer draw for Least I Could Do. I wish him all the best in his future endeavours.
What does this mean for us?
Well, it means that I'm now on the hunt for a new artist to replace Trevor, and there will be no updates for a couple of days while I search.
Tuesday 22 July 2003
We get by... with a little help from our friends.
If all of you could find a friend & partner such as Lar, you'd be the better off for it. Believe you me.
Rather than leaves you folks without any LICD goodness for a few days, Lar has pitched in and drew a couple of the scripts I planned on putting out this week.
http://www.leasticoulddo.com/index2.php?date=20030722
Tuesday 22 July 2003 - Lar deSouza
Thursday 24 July 2003
We've found our new artist for LICD. Beginning this Monday (July 28th), we are back to a 6 strip/week schedule. For all intents and purposes, consider is LICD version 2.0.
http://www.leasticoulddo.com/index2.php?date=20030728
Monday 28 July 2003 - Chad WM. Porter
http://www.leasticoulddo.com/index2.php?date=20050813
13 Aug 2005 - Chad WM. Porter
http://web.archive.org/web/20050816111318/http://www.leasticoulddo.com/
15 Aug 2005
3 years ago, I started a strip called Least I Could Do with a guy around my age, named Markus. Markus and I put about 4 strips together before realizing it just wasn’t going to work. The source material was shite, and what I had in mind wasn’t meshing with his style.
The project was shelved for a few months while I worked on scripts, and generally getting my ass together. I decided I would hire an artist this time, and I was lucky enough to find Trevor Adams. Trevor and I brought LICD to the web for 8 months, and it was a wonderful learning experience for the both of us.
Eventually though, real world called Trevor, and he was forced to leave the strip in favor of one of those fancy 9-5 jobs. I was disappointed, because I felt we were just on the cusp of things, but the circumstances dictated his actions, and I can’t fault him for that.
Once Trevor left, I offered the strip to my collaborator and best friend Lar deSouza, who was forced to pass it up due to similar issues as Trevor. Always being ‘the man’, Lar used his contacts and introduced me to one Chad WM. Porter.
For the past 2 years, I have had the pleasure and the honor to work with Chad to create around 630 strips. We have put together a strip, and a community to go with it, that I never thought possible. With Chad’s style mixed with my warped sense of humor, I really felt as if we created something unique on the internet.
...
For the last 6 months, Chad has been struggling with his duties here with LICD. Aside to the strip, Chad works 10 hours a day during the week. Adding about 4 hours a day to do the strip, does not leave room for much else.
...
He’s not only my partner in crime here, but he’s one of my closest friends’ on the planet.
...
With our artist leaving, I had 2 choices in front of me. The first, was to quit LICD and move to another project. But, as I’ve said earlier, the only time I will ever stop writing this strip is when they nail my coffin shut, so my only real option was to find another artist.
My first choice, always my first choice in everything, was to approach Lar. While he did shoot my ass down a few years ago, I was ecstatic when he accepted the position and agreed to become my partner.
...
Thus begins LICD v3.0. Big things are coming.
Stick around.
http://www.leasticoulddo.com/index2.php?date=20050815
15 Aug 2005 - Lar deSouza

I thought the above might be an interesting historical reference. I'll dump it here, it may contain useful information for the article. Shinobu 06:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ccawards.jpg

Image:Ccawards.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Neologisms Section

Okay, firstly is this needed? People make up words all the time that have not caught on, and the only two from this section that are in wide circulation are "vagoo" and "mango [manga]," neither of which are popular due to him. Which brings me to the second point:

"Vagoo," whether or not he made this word up himself, the meme came from a Fate/Stay Night doujin where the mangaka had blanked out parts of the word vagina with circles (a typical Japanese form of censoring words in manga). The scanlators left the circles in (because, heck, it's a hentai doujin - with all that sex going on, if the author censored something it must be for a reason). There is no link back to Sohmer coining this term and at best it's synchronicity, in which case the most popular form of it came from that Hmanga, so that gets the credit for it.

And "mango" for manga? That's been the name of 4chan's /a/ board since April Fool's Day of last year, so considering his comic with it was dated the 13th of May the same year, and that it's highly unlikely he and moot are in cahoots, he didn't coin this, either. Fair play to the other words, I guess, but he didn't 'invent' the two commonly encountered ones. Tesseraction (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them due to this factual incorrectness - if someone wants to add them back then that is fine with due citation. But linking to the comic and the comic alone when it wasn't where the term originated is just lying - neither word came into popular usage from LICD. Tesseraction (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also question "FUQ". I've seen other instances of both "Frequently Unasked Questions" and "FUQ" long before it's apparent invention in LICD. Do a Google Groups search.205.211.54.10 (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd highly suggest just cutting the whole section. None of the terms are used outside of the comic, and most of them aren't that frequent within it. AzureShadow (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed vagoo was deleted a few times, and at one time it says the term was coined by LICD. I'm not sure about the term's etymology, but until evidence of its prior existance comes up, wouldn't a protected redirect to this article be appropriate, to coined neologisms? Tyciol (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As shown in the conversation above, vagoo was not coined by LICD. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

Update schedule changes/misinformation

LICD does not update on Saturdays, nor does it's Sunday update count as such because it's just the Monday update done early. I changed the overview to reflect this fact, but if someone could change the side-panel thing (I don't know how) to reflect that the webcomic updates Monday-Friday, I'd appreciate it. Kazhawrylak (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kickstarter?

The rationale behind Sohmer's Kickstarter project has been the cause of an edit war that led to some blocks, with a comment that the subject has already been discussed. If there's been any such discussion, I have no idea where it took place -- it certainly wasn't in this talkpage. I've unblocked one of the IP editors, specifically so that he can post his comments on this talkpage. If he misbehaves, I will re-block him myself. DS (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll try to make this brief: Source 1: the Kickstarter Project. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/537261515/least-i-could-do-the-pilot Source 2: Sohmer's direct post as admin on the LICD webpage/forums taking credit for the Kickstarter Project (also crossposted to the Looking For Group webpage): http://forums.leasticoulddo.com/index.php?showtopic=33882 http://forums.lfgcomic.com/index.php?showtopic=7911

These serve as verifiable, reliable source that Ryan Sohmer himself made a public statement accusing Teletoon of taking his intellectual property work for their own animated show and also that this was his publicly stated direct reason for starting the Kickstarter Project.

The current page fails to mention the accusations. However, the accusations make up more than half the text of the Kickstarter project's page. To use the Kickstarter page as source, while failing to include even a mention that Sohmer has made the accusations (while, in the spirit of NPOV, remaining neutral on the truth or falsity of said allegations), is to misrepresent the source and violate NPOV.

It has been said that my adding the change constituted "unsourced content", but this is clearly an incorrect reading of the content. The source clearly verifies the fact that Sohmer made the public accusation.76.31.236.91 (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provide are not reliable and not verifiable. Please read and understand the following.
  1. any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation.. The proposed material has been challenged. Is it attributed to a reliable source?Elizium23 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to my discussion with Dragonfly6-7, it is completely reliable and verifiable. Both the article posted by Sohmer (more on why I call it an article and not a forum post below) and the Kickstarter project are not in question as to their existence or what they say.76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sohmer's forums are not third-party. Blogs reporting on his forums have no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy.Elizium23 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sohmer's postings are not a pure forum post as such. If you look at the structure of the website, all "posts" of this nature start out as news posts on the Least I Could Do main webpage, with a discussion link and automatic crosspost to the Least I Could Do forums. If I were to pull up an Archive.org snapshot of the website from a particular day, I would find the top few of these available on the main page not as "forum posts" but as news posts.76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.Elizium23 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant, see next.76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as: ... 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; i.e. someone elseElizium23 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, Did Sohmer make these public statements? Obviously he did, as per confirmation of the "first party" sources, which are self-evidently about Sohmer.76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Exceptional claims require high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; No mainstream sources have been located which cover these allegations.Elizium23 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As no lawsuit has been filed, this is not surprising. The topic has been covered in major "media" which concern the topic, mostly newsposts/blogposts by other webcomic artists.76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The notability of the controversy has not been proven.Elizium23 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is notable enough to cover LICD and the status of an animation spinoff, then it is notable enough and important enough to accurately represent the text of the Kickstarter page. Your edit fails to do so and thus fails NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.236.91 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RS states the following:
  1. The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. In Sohmer's forum posts, all we have is his word against Teletoon's.Elizium23 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are, again not verifying the veracity of the claims Sohmer has made' because that would violate NPOV. We are verifying whether or not Sohmer has made the claims. You are attempting to argue the prior point, which is completely irrelevant.76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Blogs have no editorial oversight and cannot be accepted as reliable sources for contentious claims.Elizium23 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where in any manner are you finding reason to contest the fact that Sohmer has made these claims?76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.Elizium23 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I submit that you, by leaving out half of the information (fully half the content of the Kickstarter page), are engaging in "original analysis" which misrepresents the source in question.76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. I have shown that the proposed sources are not reliable. Therefore, the point of view that they represent does not bear inclusion in the article.Elizium23 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have not shown that at all. You have not even come close to showing that the source is unreliable for purposes of showing that Sohmer himself has made the claims.
  1. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: ... Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.Elizium23 (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the article being written to "attack the reputation of another person"? The edit I offered points out that Sohmer's stated reason for creating the Kickstarter page is his belief that his intellectual property is infringed by a Teletoon project. The point of verifiability is whether Sohmer has made these statements: it is entirely possible and indeed desirable under NPOV that wikipedia report accurately on the source (e.g.: Sohmer made the following accusations stated as his reason for creating the kickstarter project) while remaining neutral as to whether the accusations are true or not.76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In summary, the allegations that have been made are not sufficiently verifiable; the sources proposed are not sufficiently reliable; the controversy is not sufficiently notable; and the material does not represent a neutral point of view. If the time should come when a reliable, third-party news organization with a reputation for fact-checking takes up the story and publishes it, the claims can be introduced in the article. Such publication would ensure notability and verifiability beyond the shadow of a doubt. Elizium23 (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but you are simply, clearly incorrect.76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we phrase it more carefully -- how about, for instance, not mentioning the name of the animation company in question? This seems to be an instance where automated edit summaries have led to more harm than good; I'm not someone who self-identifies as an LICD fan, but under the circumstances, it strikes me as disingenuous to not mention the subject at all. DS (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. A google search shows that you have this canned response (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elizium23/The_Dating_Guy) sitting around, Elizium23. It references a page that does not exist on Wikipedia (why?). However you are misrepresenting every one of these policies, and some of your responses appear to be responding to something else entirely. I shall attempt to reply inline to each of your points above, at least those that have any relevance to the question at hand. I do, however, formally object to your filing a largely copy/paste response that looks more like a form letter than any form of actual argument.76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For purposes of NPOV and representing both sides, I have been able to find coverage (via google search, terms "least I could do teletoon response") of a Teletoon response here: http://webcomicoverlook.com/2011/05/25/teletoon-responds-to-the-licd-discussion/

I will be happy to email Teletoon directly if needed to verify the veracity of this response or even ask them to supply a response themselves if need be. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am clearly incorrect? Good to know! What exactly about my meticulous quoting of policy relevant to the proposed sources is incorrect? Enlighten me. Anyway, the fact of the allegations are what cannot be included in the article. We can't say "There are allegations but we can't tell you who they are about. Follow the link to find out, wink wink, nudge nudge." Also, a blog reporting on a forum post is certainly not a reliable secondary source. Blogs have no editorial oversight. Elizium23 (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have previously replied inline with each sectional point that you cut and pasted from your boilerplate form response. If you are too lazy to bother to read my responses, that I cannot help, so I redirect you to them now. Please respond to them, rather than simply scrolling to the bottom and ignoring the bulk of the conversation. Thank you. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So now I see this. The simple fact of the matter is that the sources provided are Sohmer's own, and considered a self-published source. The instances when Wikipedia can use self-published sources as reliable are small. Self-published or questionable sources are only reliable for claims about themselves, not about other people. This is abundantly clear in the section WP:SELFPUB. Sohmer's forums, or anything that is published by himself and not a third party, as well as blogs with no editorial oversight reporting on his own forums (questionable sources) cannot be used to verify claims against someone else. Elizium23 (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are missing the point. We are not "verifying claims against someone else." We are verifying whether or not Sohmer has made the public statement of his claims. We can certainly, without malice and without NPOV and without deliberately misrepresenting a source report the fact of his making said claims while remaining neutral on whether his claims are correct as a matter of fact/law or not. What part of this is so hard for you to grasp? Sohmer's website, Sohmer's forums (on which he is the admin), and Sohmer's created Kickstarter project page all qualify as sources to verify what Sohmer has publicly stated. Basics of journalism 101: "Republicans are a bunch of retards" is non-neutral opinion, "Democrat X said 'Republicans are a bunch of retards', Republican X countered with 'statement y'" is NPOV journalism. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS is clear: Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field You cannot include the claim itself on Wikipedia without a reliable third-party source to back it up. You cannot couch the claim in conditional language - see WP:WEASEL for why we don't do this. The claim itself, against a third party, is at issue here, not the verifiability of the veracity of the claim. This is not "information about Ryan Sohmer" this is information about a third party. Elizium23 (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, where does "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed[5]" fail to be clearly attributed that Ryan Sohmer has made these accusations. This is again not a claim that the accusations are true, merely proof that this person has made this public statement. Thus it is MERELY INFORMATION ABOUT RYAN SOHMER. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about that.

I just made a post on my talkpage. Please read it before continuing with the dispute regarding Sohmer and the Kickstarter page; thank you. DS (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments

Whether Ryan Sohmer's allegations of plagiarism against Teletoon and The Dating Guy can be included on Wikipedia. Proposed sources are as follows: this forum post and this Kickstarter page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizium23 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 14 September 2011

You are mischaracterizing the situation. It is not an allegation of plagiarism. It is an allegation of inappropriate use of Intellectual Property work with failure to give due credit and recompense for said work. Please get it right. I have not responded in the other place you placed your call for "help" as I am not yet given permission by Dragonfly6-7 to edit in places other than here or his talk page, as you are well aware.76.31.236.91 (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please look up the definition of plagiarism somewhere before you start throwing around accusations like that. Elizium23 (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to protest Elizium23's deliberately provocative attack on me claiming I have "made few or no other edits" outside this topic. I edit wikipedia whenever I see something I feel needs fixing, I'm just not addicted to patrolling it for hours out of my life every day. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that the IP editor is -- as per our agreement when I unblocked him -- limiting himself to this talk page. As such, he cannot HELP but be a single-purpose account! Anyway, how about we don't name the other company, and just state that Sohmer is upset about a business venture that went sour? DS (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude: It seems like that whole Animated Series subsection should be dropped from the article as well. It reads like fan trivia and is documenting petty drama - not at all encyclopedic. When the TV show appears, then you've got something to write about. Now it's about a TV series that doesn't exist and even though the article claims " production work on the pilot has commenced", the cited source doesn't support that. It's a mess. Toddst1 (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Kickstarter goal has been met. As per the webcomic today (http://leasticoulddo.com/) script work is ongoing (direct automagically created forum duplication available here: http://forums.leasticoulddo.com/index.php?showtopic=34296). Wikipedia has no problem covering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltron#Gladiator_Voltron_.28Voltron_of_the_Middle_Universe.29) other tv shows that were proposed but never happened or (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Airbender:_Legend_of_Korra) have yet to happen... 76.31.236.91 (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally - Todd and Elizium - I think things might go a little easier if you were willing to offer apologies for misperceiving the situation with our IP editor here. This is clearly not the same person as earlier. DS (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude (and what happened to other RfC?) - I'm confused. Wasn't there an RfC on this exact same issue about a month ago? Was it in The Dating Guy article? That was deleted in an AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Dating_Guy. That prior RfC was pretty clear that (at that time) there were no independent, secondary sources covering the plagiarisim/copy topic. The only sources were blogs and persons involved in the dispute. Several editors already invested time in that prior RfC researching sources and quoting WP policy. A second identical RfC on the same issue is not welcome. Unless there are new sources, the resolution will still be the same: exclude. --Noleander (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for restoring that Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the text of the previous RFC below so that the talk page can be properly re-deleted. Toddst1 (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As near as I can tell from reading the contents of that RFC, nothing was ever really decided. You just banned anyone that agreed with one side, and then declared victory. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that a final judgement was not rendered in that RfC. But there were three editors that argued against including the plagiarism material. More importantly: the arguments against including it were very strongly based on WP policies. The arguments for including it were very weak, and seemed to not grasp the WP:Primary source and WP:Conflict of interest policies. --Noleander (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again I am still confused on a number of points. Primary Source is just fine for verifying what someone has said, as is being stated above. Objections on the basis of a "primary source" seem to dance around and fail to address this, instead claiming that we need a "third-party source" to even say that there is a controversy between Sohmer and Teletoon. To me, this argumentation does not make sense. Again, as I stated above, we can quote or reference that someone made a public statement, acknowledging that there is a standing disagreement between the two parties, while remaining NPOV and passing zero judgement on which party is correct.
I am not finding any mention of Conflict of Interest (or allegations thereof) anywhere in the discussion, so your bringing that up is news to me. As for the rest, I find it to be a severe violation of NPOV to misrepresent a source in a bald-faced manner, which is what I have objected to thus far. Dragonfly6-7 and I have gone back and forth on suggested wording on IRC, and he has a phrasing that I have stated I have no objection to. As I can't remember precisely what it was at the moment and I do not have a log file to reference, I'll hope he can paste it in here for discussion.76.31.236.91 (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but I disagree with you. If you can find some other uninvolved editors to agree with you, that may help you achieve the WP:Consensus that you need to include the material. --Noleander (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is hard to do when it appears that merely standing at the side of the argument I'm on is being used as "evidence" that people are a "sockpuppet." It's a great way to scare people off I know, and apparently it works well. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A self-published source is fine for verifying claims about themselves. It is not ok for verifying claims about someone else. Let me give you an example. Emma Watson has an official website, a self-published source. It can be, and has been, cited in her article for information about herself. There's a biography of her at this link. Let's say that she posts something that says that McDonald's serves burgers made of worms. Can we add to the Emma Watson article a statement that she made this claim? Can we add to McDonald's article that their ingredients are worms? No, neither. It is a contentious claim about a third party, and Watson's website is not a reliable source for this claim. Now let's say the New York Times interviews Emma Watson and she says the same thing. Can we include this claim on Wikipedia now? Yes, certainly. The New York Times is a reputable news source with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. In fact, the NYT may attempt to verify this claim by contacting McDonald's for comment and place their response in the same article. They will perform due diligence to ensure that this claim has some truth to it, or at least some balance from the accused party's POV, before they publish it. That's why Sohmer's forum posts can't be used on Wikipedia. It's not information about him, it's a claim about someone else, and until that can be backed up by a reputable news source, it needs to stay out of the encyclopedia. Elizium23 (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The New York Times is a reputable news source with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking" - there's your first problem. The list of failures in this regard for the NYT (and many other "news sources") is rather long. The phrase "contentious claim about a third party" is also a weasel term on your part. Dragonfly6-7 offered wording to the effect that there is a bone of contention between Sohmer and Teletoon - which is undeniably provable with ease - while not quoting the actual claim, and you still rejected even that in favor of violating NPOV by willfully and deliberately misrepresenting a source. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I shall take your silence as acceptance of my points. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is going to take your bait and try to convince you that NYT is a reliable source. Toddst1 (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave me alone. I have been trying to hold my temper all this time as you engaged in harassment and attempting to bait me at every turn. Either you have something constructive to say, or you don't. I am honestly sick and tired of the insinuations and falsehoods. I am sick and tired of you tagging me as a "single purpose account" when under the terms of my agreement with Dragonfly6-7 I am under agreement not to edit anywhere but here or his talk page. I am sick and tired of you claiming I am a "sockpuppet" when I am nothing of the sort. Despite this you continue to hound and harass me. You continue to try to canvas around your friends to get them to gang up against me. You continue to call me a "sockpuppet" and accuse me of "quacking" merely for trying to get people not to misrepresent a source on wikipedia, as I consider misrepresentation of a source to be a violation of NPOV standards. I honestly don't care what you think or say, you were asked politely by Dragonfly6-7 as my mentor to treat me with respect, and in response you "apologized" for not harassing me further and harder, sooner. So either come up with something constructive to say, or leave me alone and stop trying to bait me. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A self publishing source can be used for providing information about themselves only, it can't be used when it involves claims about a third party, per WP:SPS. - JRheic (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So a phrasing like "Due to conflicts with Teletoon, Ryan Sohmer created a Kickstarter page to request donations from his fans to create the pilot episode of a Least I Could Do animated series..." isn't going to fly? Because that's the offered wording that Toddst1, Elizium23, and their buddies are trying to keep from existing. The conflict is half the content of the Kickstarter webpage, if we can't even acknowledge that a conflict exists, we violate NPOV by misrepresenting the hell out of a source. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be Sohmer's claim that he started the Kickstarter project due to a conflict with Teletoon, but the article shouldn't state this claim as fact unless a reliable source does first, per WP:SELFPUB (claims about third parties). Policy only requires that we represent "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". There's no NPOV violation in not mentioning something that hasn't received coverage from reliable sources. - JRheic (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. So you're saying that the fact that Sohmer said this, is not verifiable as a fact? 76.31.236.91 (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Under the circumstances - specifically, the circumstance that this involves rather negative statements about an identifiable third party - the standards of evidence are somewhat higher, and stuff like this becomes equivalent to... well, to hearsay. DS (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, alternate suggested wording: "In early 2011, Sohmer stated that due to conflicts with Teletoon he was creating a Kickstarter page..." Will that work better for keeping it clear that the allegations are SOHMER'S and that Wikipedia passes no judgement on the conflict save to acknowledge that it exists? 76.31.236.91 (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Policy states that self-published sources that "involve claims about third parties" should not be used. I interpret this to mean whether you're claiming it as fact or not (apologies, I should have said this before). It may seem unreasonable but there are usually good reasons why a policy is worded the way it is. It may also violate WP:BLPGOSSIP. I personally wouldn't add it. I don't see the problem with just stating that he created the Kickstarter page without mentioning the alleged reasoning behind it, since that would be 100% factual. The stuff about taking his rage at Teletoon and turning it into something positive sounds like a marketing angle to me anyway, just my opinion obviously. However, perhaps it is a grey area and I won't remove the material in the aforementioned wording if you add it. - JRheic (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to take the points in turn. Hope I get this format right.
  1. - WP:BLPGOSSIP states that Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. I am not aware of any weasel words or attribution to anonymous sources. I am not sure how the section applies, if you could be more clear it would be helpful.
  2. - The phrase involve claims about third parties is so vague as to not be any assistance. By this metric, so little can be used that it's almost meaningless. Someone stating their birthdate, or the grade school they attended. But for a person saying "I have a conflict with Jenny Smith over Issue X" - where do we draw the line? It could easily be said that an actor and actress divorcing, with one placing on their personal (publicist) website a statement about "separating for reasons of X" is a "claim about third parties", but I wouldn't argue it is unreliable nor unencyclopedic to include in the biography of either individual. One can take things too far, and I think in this case the avoidance of even mentioning the existence of dispute is getting to the point where people are being literalist and not using their common sense. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. - I was referring more to 'Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.' For example, is the source reliable? One person writing about a situation in which he is canvassing for investors is unlikely to be an unbiased source. Are details about a production dispute regarding a television version of a comic relevant enough to be included in an article about said comic? A lot of readers might be interested to know that a television version of the comic is in production, but I think relatively few would be interested in the pre-production history of the as-yet unrealised show.
  2. - We draw the line when a person or entity other than the person self-publishing becomes involved, and in some circumstances even before that. Yes it is restrictive, this is why self-published primary sources are avoided. In your divorce example, we would use an independent reliable source as a reference rather than linking to the publicist's website. We would wait for, say, Variety magazine to publish a story on it and then use that as a reference. One reason it is done this way is that the onus of fact-checking is then on that publication and not on Wikipedia. - JRheic (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what, then, happens if Variety and other magazines choose not to bother reporting on this particular one, perhaps because it's overshadowed by some bigger news (such as Justin Bieber coming out of the closet, or something)? 76.31.236.91 (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no reliable sources judged an event to be worth covering, then it probably isn't worth including in an encyclopedia either. - JRheic (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then we have a lot of Wikipedia articles and sections to remove. There are perfectly reliable sources to quote in both the current case and the case I posed. Avoiding "the onus of fact-checking" when determining what someone said, if it is said in a public and recordable, verifiable way, is just silliness. It is no worse, and no better, than quoting a newspaper editorial to verify what an editorial columnist said.76.31.236.91 (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RFC

The following RFC has been transcribed from Talk:The_Dating_Guy#RfC:_inclusion_of_plagiarism_allegations as that is a talk page of a now-deleted article. It is on the same subject as the RFC started above on this page.

Previous RFC on whether allegations against The Dating Guy from the creator of Least I Could Do can be included in Wikipedia.

Whether allegations of plagiarism against The Dating Guy from the creator of Least I Could Do can be included in Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • first of all, Elizium is engaging in tendentious editing regarding this topic including but not limited to violations of WP:BITE, WP:BEAR, WP:CANVAS, and filing false reports at WP:AIV all designed to trick other editors into angry behavior regarding this topic so that he can then have them blocked. This is behavior highly inappropriate for Wikipedia and has been reported to WP:ANI in hopes that his trolling and attacks will be forced to cease.

Secondly, he is tilting the wording above. It is not a "plagiarism" accusation made by Sohmer, rather, the accusation is that Teletoon and The Dating Guy staff have used his (Blind Ferret Entertainment's) intellectual property without proper credit or recompense. Elizium would do well to take a step back and stop his trolling behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.109.127.141 (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — 108.109.127.141 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Probably not - There are a couple of hurdles that have to be overcome: (1) the facts about the allegations have to come from WP:Secondary sources ... not from the person making the complaint. In other words, some reliable newspaper (see WP:RS) has to document the allegation, and that newspaper should be the source (footnote) that justifies the material. (2) The WP:BLP policy has very strict rules about including material that could defame a living person. An allegation of plagiarism is very severe. Therefore, it cannot be included in WP without excellent reliable sources (i.e. several newspapers) documenting the allegations. --Noleander (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intellectual property rights does not insinuate plagiarism. Sohmer's claims have always been that his intellectual property rights were infringed upon. In the very basic sense of this, proving plagiarism would necessitate the alleging party produce evidence that the alleged offender has taken whole sections of work and put it into their piece, as well as claiming original creation. Secondly, the source of the complaint is a first-hand account of what happened, and by Wikipedia's own rules: "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source." Are you now claiming that Sohmer, a party privy to the talks and negotiations, is a second-hand source, let alone a "non-reliable" second-hand source? I hope not. Lastly, until such time as Teletoon claims otherwise and brings it to court, claims of defamation by people not directly involved (you, me, Steve in Accounting, etc.) have no business labeling anything libel, slander, or defamation. As has been said, the section is there to show that a controversy exists, not to pass judgment one way or the other. FaheyUSMC (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)— FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
FWIW, user FaheyUSMC was the user that added the "Controvery" material into the article. --Noleander (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@FaheyUSMC: A "secondary source", within the realm of Wikipedia, simply means a source that is not directly involved in the events being described. So the parties to this controversy are primary sources. Although primary sources may be used as sources sometimes, secondary sources (independent of the events, such as newspapers, books, etc) are strongly preferred, especially when controversial material is involved. --Noleander (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of curiosity, would blogs reporting on the situation count as reliable secondary sources? A quick google search turned up two (this one and this one). If so, then I agree with FaheyUSMC's analysis that it would be fair to mention that there is a controversy. --The Omega Knight (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs fall under the term 'questionable sources' in the WP:RS policy, and the same criteria apply to them as the self-published source we're already dealing with. No claims against third parties - as much as our friends would like to classify this as something else, it is a contentious claim against a third party. Elizium23 (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, Elizium, Ryan Sohmer is a party directly engaged in the actions mentioned, and he is not a third-party. Ergo, if he is a party involved with the controversy, and he is bringing a claim against another party directly involved, then the issue is no longer a third-party issue. Furthermore, if you're going to try to claim that someone else mentioning it is not acceptable because it's talking about a "third-party", then you must invalidate and remove any and all mention of controversy on Wikipedia itself that has no foundation in a court ruling because that would become a "contentious claim", by your logic. Once again, though, you are attempting selective judgment when it comes to this, and completely ignoring other facts, articles on Wikipedia, and the like to try to bolster your case. Finally, as I have said, no one is saying that Sohmer is right or not. The purpose of the section is to say, there is a controversy, we're not passing judgment, and that's that. Last I checked, as long as the source is not self-serving (and, in this case, it isn't) a first-hand account is allowed. Teletoon still has the ability to refute the allegations, and they are very much aware of the issue, since they have written on Sohmer's forums, as well as here with the original article. FaheyUSMC (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)— FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • From Wikipedia's own rulings on second-party sources: "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source." The section in question, written by me, is neither drawing a conclusion in favor of one seide, attempting to analyze the claims, or evaluate and pass judgment against either party. The section is there simply to say, "There's a controversy, here is what it is." FaheyUSMC (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)— FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I advanced your theory (actually, it was Kyphis' theory, which was why I couldn't remember it as yours) at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_49#Please_clarify_what_is_meant_by_a_.22third_party.22 and it was roundly criticized. They offered the dictionary definition of "third party" as proof. If you want to argue about the definition then you need to address a larger forum than this talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was not roudly criticized. Reading over it, only one person said to look at the definition, which still, supports my argument. Neither Sohmer, nor Teletoon is a third party. They are both parties directly related to the events. A third party would be you, me, or Joe in Accounting. You can, however, make a claim that the creators of The Dating Guy are a third party, but if - and only if - Sohmer's allegations are true, then they are also a party that is directly related to the events as described, even if Sohmer was not involved in the transaction. And yes, I am using both the dictionary's definition, as well as the legal definition in my argument. FaheyUSMC (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)— FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Also, I do believe the person saying to read the dictionary definition is speaking to you in this instance, as both definitions would agree that Blind Ferret Entertainment, Ryan Sohmer, and Teletoon are not third party. FaheyUSMC (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)— FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Elizium23, I'm failing to follow the logic here. As stated repeatedly above, Blind Ferret Entertainment, Ryan Sohmer and Teletoon are First Party in this instance under a textbook read of First Party. What is your point here? I think you are badly misinterpreting policy in this instance. The inclusion of this event, in which Ryan Sohmer accused teletoon of pluralism and then went on the begin production of a pilot episode of an animated series after gathering the funding though a website is certainly above the bar for inclusion regardless of if the pluralism claim is true or not. Given we have to use Ryan Sohmer in a description of what happened absolutely places him as a first party. 151.213.217.124 (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)— 151.213.217.124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • NO Forum postings are not WP:RS. Inclusion of the material violates WP:BLP and WP:ATTACK. LK (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, I want you to point out exactly where there was an attack made against a living person. If you are indicating it's an attack against Ryan Sohmer, I would point out that the issue was brought up BY Sohmer. As the section was made in a disinterested manner, neutral in tone, it did not violate any form of the rules and regulations. You may now put it back up. FaheyUSMC (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)— FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I have undone the removal of the CONTROVERSY section, as it was removed without a valid reason. Linking to other portions of Wikipedia standards while not backing up your claims with specific instances of violations is not a valid reason for removal of the section. A debate can only be maintained when both sides provide arguments and facts to back up their claims. In accordance with all United States defamation laws, as well as adhering to the standards governed by Wikipedia, the section in question does not fall with-in the parameters of a violation which would require it to be removed.
DO NOT just remove the section without providing sufficient details to justify such a move. FaheyUSMC (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)— FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You are misreading wikipedia policy. Please read WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP. Negative material about living persons need proper sources. A charge of plagiarism is a serious contention. A forum post is not a reliable source for such an accusation. Do NOT edit war to include negative material about living persons. Doing so is a serious violation of our policies. LK (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to actually defend your position using proper debating tactics. Instead, you and Elizium23 have used the exact same thing - a broad generalization of the Wikipedia "rules and regulations" to support your claims. However, I have gone into detail multiple times to show you how Wikipedia actually suggests that YOU are both wrong. Until you do so, DO NOT remove the area that has been added as controversy.
Furthermore, the article does not slander, defame, or libel any person. The article makes no mention of certainty in the claims, and only states, "Here is a claim made, it's a broiling controversy." By your logic, unless it is picked up by a major news source, there is no verifiable way to actually ascertain the legitimacy of the claims. And until one party brings the other to court (which if Teletoon were not guilty, they would have done already, or served a cease and desist, which they have not), it is not likely to see print in a major source.
I will be making sure the controversy is, once again, added. You have no business taking it down until you can justify, with specifics, where there are violations. If this is an attempt to get me to breach the "three-revert" rule, it's not going to work.
Lastly, the claim is made by a person against an entity that is not a living person. It is a company. United States opinion on the defamation laws do support my position here. Once again, UNTIL YOU CAN PROVIDE DEFINITIVE, SPECIFIC AREAS WHERE THERE IS A VIOLATION, DO NOT TAKE OUT THE SECTION. Wikipedia and United States law support my position, and if you need to see exactly how it is supported, go through this again, as it is clear you have not. Semper fi. FaheyUSMC (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)— FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • No. Although there are now three sections on this page about the same issue, I have not weighed in here, and some of my points may have been lost in the previous article deletion, so I will weigh in on the RFC for posterity. WP:V states that
  1. any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation.. The proposed material has been challenged. Is it attributed to a reliable source?
  2. Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sohmer's forums are not third-party. Blogs reporting on his forums have no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy.
  3. self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.
  4. Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as: ... 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; i.e. someone else
  5. Exceptional claims require high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; No mainstream sources have been located which cover these allegations.
  6. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The notability of the controversy has not been proven.
  • WP:RS states the following:
  1. The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. In Sohmer's forum posts, all we have is his word against Teletoon's.
  2. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Blogs have no editorial oversight and cannot be accepted as reliable sources for contentious claims.
  3. Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
  1. Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. I have shown that the proposed sources are not reliable. Therefore, the point of view that they represent does not bear inclusion in the article.
  1. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: ... Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
  • In summary, the allegations that have been made are not sufficiently verifiable; the sources proposed are not sufficiently reliable; the controversy is not sufficiently notable; and the material does not represent a neutral point of view. If the time should come when a reliable, third-party news organization with a reputation for fact-checking takes up the story and publishes it, the claims can be introduced in the article. Such publication would ensure notability and verifiability beyond the shadow of a doubt. Elizium23 (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-arguments

Once an argument gets to the meta stage, it is very, very difficult to ever resolve constructively.

A meta argument is an argument about the tactics being used in the argument. As such, it very quickly becomes stupid and pointless.

I would like to ask that meta disputes be put on hold for now. Last time the issue of the source's reliability was being discussed (on the talk page for The Dating Guy), the dispute was abruptly halted when the page got deleted (after an AfD). So there was no real resolution, which has led to more messes.

I suggest "As a result of further disputes with Teletoon, Sohmer initiated a Kickstarter project to etc etc [ref kickstarter page, ref Sohmer's admin post on Sohmer's official forum]". Does anyone object to that wording? And if so, why? DS (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I weighed in above, I might as well continue: I don't think mentioning any dispute is appropriate if there isn't a third-party source for it. Saying "Somner is pursuing independent funding to begin production..." is neutral. The Examiner avoided mentioning any dispute, using Sohmer's words "opted out." Toddst1 (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try paying closer attention: the Examiner article pre-dates the show "The Dating Guy", as well as Sohmer's stated timetable of being made aware of its existence and the circumstances of its similarity to (what he considers the uncredited/unpaid use of) the IP he had already developed. Saying the Examiner "avoided" mentioning it is an unfair or inaccurate characterization. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production

The last sentence of Least_I_Could_Do#Animated_series includes the statement "production work on the pilot has commenced" which is not supported in the source. This source says that scripts are being written which is very different from the production stage. I tagged it as {{fv}} a few days ago. I'm now going to remove the statement. Toddst1 (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not do that. Either change it to "scriptwriting" with your source, or else consider that "production" means very different things when considering an independent, animated work and that you are applying an incorrectly chosen standard. 76.31.236.91 (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anon edits

Okay, the anon editor has been making two additions to the article. First, there's a statement about 'the Dating Guy', phrased in an unacceptably hostile fashion. Second, there's a mention of news regarding the LICD program's production schedule.

I don't think you would have faced restrictions on your editing if you hadn't repeatedly made those hostile statements about TDG. Those other people who have this article on your watchlists, can I have confirmation ? DS (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is likely another sock of Fahey and clearly the same user as 76.31.236.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 98.196.234.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Toddst1 (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who or what you are talking about or for that matter smoking, Toddst1. I came here because I read my comics on fridays and because I saw the video and thought I would see if this place was updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.1 (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cast work and videos

I noticed someone called this spam, it's not spam as the series premieres next month. Sohmer also confirmed on the comments for the blog that rights to Consequence Free from Great Big Sea have been confirmed for the series here: http://www.leasticoulddo.com/presented-without-comment/#comment-844320209 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.234.1 (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Least I Could Do. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Least_I_Could_Do&oldid=955158235"