Misplaced Pages

Talk:Least I Could Do: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:01, 14 September 2011 editElizium23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,953 edits →Request for comments← Previous edit Revision as of 21:05, 14 September 2011 edit undoElizium23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,953 edits spaNext edit →
Line 149: Line 149:
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. 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.] (]) 01:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 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.] (]) 01:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>


:The sources you provide are not reliable and not verifiable. Please read and understand the following. :The sources you provide are not reliable and not verifiable. Please read and understand the following.
Line 155: Line 155:
*] states that *] states that
#''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? #''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?
:::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.] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC) :::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.] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
#''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. #''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.
:::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.] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC) :::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.] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
#''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.'' #''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.''
:::Irrelevant, see next.] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC) :::Irrelevant, see next.] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
#''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 #''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
:::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.] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC) :::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.] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
#''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. #''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.
:::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.] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC) :::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.] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
#''If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it.'' The notability of the controversy has not been proven. #''If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it.'' The notability of the controversy has not been proven.
:::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. :::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.
*] states the following: *] states the following:
#''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. #''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.
:::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.'''] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC) :::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.'''] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
#''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. #''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.
:::Where in any manner are you finding reason to contest the fact that Sohmer has made these claims?] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC) :::Where in any manner are you finding reason to contest the fact that Sohmer has made these claims?] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
#''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 Misplaced Pages editors.'' #''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 Misplaced Pages editors.''
:::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.] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC) :::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.] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
*] reads as follows: *] reads as follows:
#''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 Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages 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. #''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 Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages 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.
Line 178: Line 178:
*] states: *] states:
#''Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.'' #''Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.''
:::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'''.] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC) :::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'''.] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
*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. ] (]) 21:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC) *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. ] (]) 21:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
:::I am sorry but you are simply, clearly incorrect.] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC) :::I am sorry but you are simply, clearly incorrect.] (]) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>


::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''. ] (]) 12:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC) ::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''. ] (]) 12:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. A google search shows that you have this canned response (http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Elizium23/The_Dating_Guy) sitting around, Elizium23. It references a page that does not exist on Misplaced Pages (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.] (]) 12:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Interesting. A google search shows that you have this canned response (http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Elizium23/The_Dating_Guy) sitting around, Elizium23. It references a page that does not exist on Misplaced Pages (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.] (]) 12:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>


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: 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/ 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. ] (]) 13:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 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. ] (]) 13:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>


::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. ] (]) 17:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC) ::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. ] (]) 17:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
::: 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. ] (]) 19:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC) ::: 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. ] (]) 19:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
::::So now I see this. The simple fact of the matter is that the sources provided are Sohmer's own, and considered a ]. The instances when Misplaced Pages 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 20:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC) ::::So now I see this. The simple fact of the matter is that the sources provided are Sohmer's own, and considered a ]. The instances when Misplaced Pages 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 20:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::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. ] (]) 20:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC) :::::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. ] (]) 20:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
::::::] 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 Misplaced Pages without a reliable third-party source to back it up. You cannot couch the claim in conditional language - see ] 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. ] (]) 20:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC) ::::::] 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 Misplaced Pages without a reliable third-party source to back it up. You cannot couch the claim in conditional language - see ] 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. ] (]) 20:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


Line 204: Line 204:
{{rfc|media|rfcid=7E94D88}} {{rfc|media|rfcid=7E94D88}}
Whether ]'s allegations of plagiarism against ] and ''The Dating Guy'' can be included on Misplaced Pages. Proposed sources are as follows: and . Whether ]'s allegations of plagiarism against ] and ''The Dating Guy'' can be included on Misplaced Pages. Proposed sources are as follows: and .
: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.] (]) 20:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC) :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.] (]) 20:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
::Please look up the definition of ] somewhere before you start throwing around accusations like that. ] (]) 21:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC) ::Please look up the definition of ] somewhere before you start throwing around accusations like that. ] (]) 21:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:05, 14 September 2011

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconComics: Webcomics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Webcomics.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSociology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconGender studies Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

To-do list for Least I Could Do: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2009-09-27

  • Use in-line citations to properly reference the article and get this page up to B-Class status.
  • Edit the entry on Rayne to a more manageable size consistent with the size of other main characters or split Rayne Summers off into his own article.
  • Assertively patrol edits that contain time-sensitive content (such as those referring to "recent" storylines, as those storylines only remain recent for a limited time-frame).
  • Include information on Least I Could Do Meets related to the comic community, Ryan Sohmer and/or Lar deSouza.
  • Some of this is a little biased. One may wish to make it more neutral.
  • Complete cast avatars.
  • Quotes, A few good, memorable quotes would be a nice section ... maybe a top ten. If not, maybe someone could create a section for it in WikiQuotes.
  • With the departure of Chad, I think we should add in a section for the artists of LICD. Talk a bit about Trevor, Chad, and Lar. I can write up some things on Chad and Lar, but don't have much on Trevor. Could someone start this up with Trevor talk, and then we'll add Chad and Lar?

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

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

Bra man

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

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

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 ," 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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)— 76.31.236.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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?
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)— 76.31.236.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  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.
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)— 76.31.236.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  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.
Irrelevant, see next.76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)— 76.31.236.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  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 else
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)— 76.31.236.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  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.
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)— 76.31.236.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  1. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it. The notability of the controversy has not been proven.
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.
  • 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.
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)— 76.31.236.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  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.
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)— 76.31.236.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  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 Misplaced Pages editors.
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)— 76.31.236.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  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 Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages 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.
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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
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)— 76.31.236.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • 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)
I am sorry but you are simply, clearly incorrect.76.31.236.91 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)— 76.31.236.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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)

Interesting. A google search shows that you have this canned response (http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Elizium23/The_Dating_Guy) sitting around, Elizium23. It references a page that does not exist on Misplaced Pages (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)— 76.31.236.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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)— 76.31.236.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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)
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)— 76.31.236.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)— 76.31.236.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Request for comments

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Whether Ryan Sohmer's allegations of plagiarism against Teletoon and The Dating Guy can be included on Misplaced Pages. Proposed sources are as follows: this forum post and this Kickstarter page.

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)— 76.31.236.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Please look up the definition of plagiarism somewhere before you start throwing around accusations like that. Elizium23 (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Categories: