Talk:Cara Cunningham/Archive 4

• I say keep it in the article. Besides the fact that it was in the article for a long time, just the fact of being the first all-gay collaboration video - and it being done by some of YouTube's top "celebrities" make it notable. The question "is the source considered reliable" is ludicrous considering YouTube videos are used as source/reference all over Wikipedia - so in that aspect, of course the source is reliable. Video doesn't lie. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 07:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete it. It is unnotable on behalf of Buckley, let alone irrelevant to Crocker's infamy. We don't need to add every vlog about Crocker on YouTube. Reginmund 15:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that we don't need to add every vlog about Crocker on YouTube. Only relevant and important ones, which this is. It speaks to his degree of celebrity. If he weren't who he is and weren't as popular as he is, he wouldn't have even been part of the first all-gay collaboration video nor considered as a top YouTube "celebrity". He'd be some kid that Buckley wouldn't have even noticed. It speaks volumes about Crocker's status and only confirms it. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 16:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that their notability to be included in the "first all-gay collaboration" isn't the same standards of notability as it is on Wikipedia. Hence why the article on Gay God has been deleted several times and finally protected, it just seems irrelevant. Reginmund 03:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant to you maybe. I'm sure there's others who would see the value in it. Matthew Lush, aka Gay God, didn't get national media attention. Crocker did. Lush didn't get a TV production deal. Crocker did. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant to Wikipedia. People may care about them but it does qualify for it being notable. Reginmund (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete some - the fact that he participated in the event may be notable. What another vlogger said about him (in a sarcastic tone, if I remember correctly?) is not particularly notable. Now, if

WP:OR. The way it's written, it seems as if Crocker's popularity increased because he was part of the event. We can't know that, and to imply it seems .. disingenuous. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs

) 22:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the comments were sarcastic but agree if they were should be noted as such. The ranking statement is led with Before the "Leave Britney Alone" video aired... but rewording could potentially make that more clear.

Benjiboi

23:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. I re-reviewed the video and it does not seem to be sarcastically said at all so the statement as written seems to accurately characterize the video.

Benjiboi

06:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen the video, and doubt I ever will, so I won't comment on the possible sarcasm. The fact that the subject is notable, and that this event, even if it is not particularly notable himself, seems to be one of the most notable events of that segment of his life, which in part led to his current notability, is to my eyes probably reason enough to include the information. John Carter (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Buckley's comments by themselves do not seem to be sarcastic. But see them in the setting of the entire episode - everyone else is making catty comments about each other and/or sarcastic exaggerations about themselves and the others. Given that, the whole episode can only be seen as comedic, and therefore not a very good source. I'm just not convinced that the paragraph adds anything to the article. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note every video with rare exception that all these performers do is comedic and focused on entertaining but hardly diminishes their POV which, IMHO, is represented accurately and quite neutrally as befits an encyclopedia. Characterizing all their comments as "catty" and exaggerated seams

Benjiboi

22:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I also want to add that I believe this also shows Crocker as part of a trend of LGBT people like

Benjiboi

07:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• It seems pretty trivial to me. Leave it out.
  talk
  ) 05:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my prolonged absence but I'll get back to the discussion now. The collaboration as the subject of the article is mainly not the reason for the article being here. I believe that we may attribute the infamy to "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!". Yes, the subject matter is rather catty, but to say the least, this is not what's up for discussion. The article is here for its media attention. However, the collaboration video is merely a irrelevant to the subject at hand and whether or not it is a "good" example of his acting, it is also a good example of original research. Simply being that he did not produce the video serves no merit in its inclusion as it is a trivial example of Crocker's cruft. If his mainstream exposure is indeed an archetype of a new LGBT trend, it certainly didn't garner this classification via the collaboration video. Reginmund (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's well established you don't care for the subject of the article so you would be wise to avoid continually characterizing his work as "cruft" lest you too be labeled catty. And you're correct that the article isn't about the collaboration but you seem to miss that it is about Crocker and not just the infamous "Leave Britney Alone" video. Even he admits he wished that wasn't his introduction to most of the world. Regardless he is here because of his notability which was in place even before the video, interviews, series, etc. Having material cited that one doesn't produced? Does that mean every bio should now be gleaned of material unless they produce their own movies? So much of Hollywood will be ever so disappointed. And actually this video is a perfect example of a new LGBT trend as is stated in the video itself and in the text describing same.

Benjiboi

00:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether how I refer to the subject matter as. Nor should that affect the credibility of my opinion on this subject as it shouldn't yours. I am still missing out on how his previous cruft is attributable to a Wikipedia article, let alone a paragraph. This article was created shortly after "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!"[6] and makes no mention of the rest of his cruft or even Buckley's video. In this case, he was placed here simply because of the viral video and for no other reason in regards to any of his other videos, especially a video which is non-canonical to his profile. But I make the point of him not producing the video only because this is not what Crocker is attributed for and the inclusion of Buckley's video is even more remote to the subject matter. If this is indeed an archetypal example of an LGBT fad, it should be independently sourced by one or several media outlets that say it is. Otherwise, claims of it being a good example would be

original research. Reginmund (talk

) 01:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is about Chris Crocker, not just Chris Crocker and his Britney video. Agreed, that video is what propelled him to his celebrity but it is now just a number in the many numbers to add together that now makes Chris Crocker, Chris Crocker. If you see it as cruft, then by your definition we should go to every college football coach article on WikiPedia and remove any mentions of their high school coaching days as well as any sections about their upbringing because, afterall, what's any of that really have to do with college? Be serious here and realize this article has grown beyond Britney. -- ALLSTARecho 01:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A section on a football coach's upbringing is attributable to his biography. However, a section on the football coach's appearance in a YouTube video which has no importance to the article or the media is questionable. This should concur with any other biographical article. Yes this vlogger has more to him than his viral video, but in being reasonable, I would stick to what is important to the media. Reginmund (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, this article had been created, apparently, prior to the big video but had failed to pass at AfD. I notice you managed to insert cruft a few more times, well done. Crocker is attributed to his acting in videos of which this is certainly one and perhaps the first one where he is not the sole editor/producer. And no "claims of it being a good example of an LGBT archetype" are in the text you fervently want to delete as non-canonical Crocker so your accusations of original research can be saved for if that does happen. Anything else?

Benjiboi

01:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If the article was indeed created before "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!", Crocker's cruft, canonical or non-canonical would be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article on, let alone a section. But one video was notable enough; and indeed if this makes amends for anything more cruft being any more notable, then so be it. By this of course, I mean if it also gets media attention. However, I see no evidence of it being notable to the media so it would be easy to assume that if this article was made on the foundation of the collaboration video, it would indeed get deleted as the old article on Crocker did. Hence any trace of it should be deleted on Wikipedia as it is unencyclopaedic. Nor is it a valid interpretation to add the collaboration video simply because it was independently produced. That is, unless the producer or the video is notable to the media. In your own words, you stated that "this video is a perfect example of a new LGBT trend". However, this is actually a perfect example of original research. You may think that it is a perfect example but Wikipedia is

not a publisher of original thought. However, it would be acceptable to add in media sources that state this claim. Mind you, I don't "fervently" want to delete this video because it is non-canonical. I simply want to delete information on this video because it is not notable. Reginmund (talk

) 05:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You really shouldn't speak on things you know nothing about. This video in question and the related information is notable because it was a historic collaboration of 4 of YouTube's top celebrities, 3 of which are gay (William Sledd, Chris Crocker, Matthew Lush), 2 of which now have their own television shows in production (Sledd and Crocker). Exactly what is not notable here?? -- ALLSTARecho 06:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, do me a favour and don't assume I know nothing of the subject matter. In fact, you really shouldn't speak on what I know if you know nothing about what I know. Now, I doubt that this collaboration can be deemed as "historical" and I'm not quite sure of what you mean by the "4 top" YouTube celebrities. They definitely aren't the top 4 most subscribed to or top 4 most viewed. Even if it be that two of them have their own television shows, they don't have the Midas touch. Simply because they are in a YouTube video together does not make the video notable. At least the media doesn't think so. Reginmund (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the top 4. I said 4 of the top. There is a difference. -- ALLSTARecho 15:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify for me how the word order has any different connotations. Reginmund (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you being serious??? You really don't understand the difference between top 4 and 4 of the top???? Umm, ok then.. the top 4 would be exactly that, the top 4, as in #1, #2, #3 and #4. 4 of the top would be any number in the top, 20, 30, 40, 50 but still among the most watched/viewed/subscribed of thousands if not millions on YouTube. -- ALLSTARecho 17:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am being "serious???". You are saying that they "4 of the top", referring to the top being 4 YouTubers. But I digress. Whether or not they are top [no particular numeral] of YouTubers is not a candidate for accreditation. Reginmund (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then you keep on believing that. They aren't top for nothing and they sure aren't top for lack of notability. -- ALLSTARecho 03:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

For whatever reasons that they are top on YouTube, they still don't have the credentials to appear on Wikipedia. Reginmund (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Back to your OR accusations you can save it as no one has suggested adding that aspect into the article so please refrain from churning that anymore please.

Benjiboi

13:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"William Sledd, Matthew Lush, Chris Crocker and Michael Buckley are four of the most popular channels on You Tube; they are also gay! For the first time, all four have teamed up to make a video to discuss their feelings towards each other and hopefully breakdown some stereotypes about gay people." As the text wish you wish expunge clearly states they are four of the most-subscribed vloggers with all four in the top 20 most subscribed of all-time. Still seems noteworthy to me. As of this writing it's now up to 623,905 views and 5,663 comments.

Benjiboi

13:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You have not suggested to add in text describing the video as an LGBT fad but you have suggested for being the only reason to add it in, regardless of notability. Thus, making it original research. I understand that it may be significant to you that these vloggers are gay and you think it is an important video. However, there are no independent sources stating that it is an important video, or sources even ridiculing the video as they have done to "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!". But the fact that none have mentioned the video doesn't make it notable by Wikipedia's standards. Nor are the amount of views and comments a factor in notability. Reginmund (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation but I also don't think it matters as that has yet to be introduced into the article and you're the only one talking about doing so. The section speaks for itself as is; the top four out gay YouTube vloggers collaborating on ... a vlog on YouTube, it's what they do and they are all known internationally for. Disagree with your assessment of notoriety, were we discussing an article about just this video it wouldn't be an issue as not enough RS validate having its own article but luckily for thousands of articles that is not the measure of inclusion of content. There is a difference whether this video is notable for its own article (not) or just fine as content for an article on any the four subjects (totally). Also disagree with your assessment on views and comment counts; it shows you may be unfamiliar with how YouTube works. Anyone can post videos but what raises a video to the top of the pile is how many times it's viewed and how many comments it gets and to a lesser extent how many times it's saved as a favorite. In this case out of 130 posted by Buckley it's his fourth highest and is clearly a very popular video with over 5000 comments and as of today 4,213 people have saved it as a favorite. Any vlogger would be quite happy with those numbers. Also your insistence or perhaps belief that regular media publishes reams of material about YouTube videos is a bit naive. Indeed they do often cover the subject but usually in their vlogs and blogs so frankly even Buckley's videos with well over a million views aren't individually discussed in traditional media. I wouldn't expect them to either just as they don't endless discuss most videos which actually make crocker even more exceptional that he was an exception to this rule.

Benjiboi

19:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is not an interpretation. Adding information on a video just because you think it is important to a particular matter is

original research. It is made clear on the guideline. I am neither the only talking about removing the text. Reading the previous discussion, there are others who oppose adding the paragraph on the collaboration as well. Whether or not the section speaks for itself, it does not provide substantial information independent of its producer which is one of the fundamental vitalities an article must have in order to achieve notability, let alone a section. Yet, it shouldn't be mistaken that the article is solely about the inclusion off its godforsaken catalyst. If material is independently sourced, it has concluded to be notable. I am fully aware of how YouTube works but in order to properly comprehend how to determine what is a reliable source, you must be fully aware of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not accept notability of a YouTube celebrity merely upon their comment count or favourite count. Wikipedia accepts notability upon the basis of independent sources. Hence, whether or not it is notable outside of the user's subscribers. I do not understand how the use of only independent sources can be considered naīve. The use of independent sources is vital in determining whether or not the subject is notable outside of YouTube. Ironically, the inclusion of any subject simply because it has an elevated fanbase would more so characterise naīvité. Reginmund (talk

) 02:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop spinning the OR theory as you are the only one who seems to think the paragraph in question is somehow OR or that because it is used will somehow trigger OR problems. Neither is true so please drop it.

Benjiboi

14:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite confused on your insistence that the paragraph isn't independently verified. Are you now asserting that Crocker owns or somehow has control of YouTube or Buckley? Do you have any proof of this? Crocker's input was edited by Buckley and posted by Buckley on YouTube all quite independent of Crocker's control. It's a fact that Crocker participated as well as every other detail in that paragraph is indeed plainly evident. Seems to me you simply don't like Crocker, Buckley and/or YouTubers and possibly just want to combat on talk pages as is evidenced by your conduct on other articles and your recent block. This really has been a waste of time and energy with the only upside being that through your actions the article has been stabilized. The content of the paragraph is verifiable, and we aren't making any exceptionable claims that need the New York Times to confirm them for you. I can only assume you have a problem with the subject of the article and at least one of the other gay vloggers in the paragraph so will remind you that Wikipedia is not censored. Please accept my invitation to find articles that are in desperate need of editing, have few if any references and seem to have no editors actively vetting every word on them; this article is not in any of those categories and you have now kept us from improving this article for weeks on end.

Benjiboi

14:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't simply drop my original research statement just because you don't like it. The fact is that using the idea that the video is a good example of an LGBT fad to add information in without any independent sources is clearly an example of original research. Whether you like it or not, it is true. Nor have I asserted that Crocker has control over YouTube or Buckley, please don't spin my words. The paragraph has no independent verification. Hence, it has no other articles discussing it from independent sources such as media outlets. I'd appreciate it if you'd quit engaging in theorising that I am out to destroy Crocker when this couldn't be further from the truth. In the instance that there is original research on any article, I wouldn't hesitate to elicit or discuss it, whether or not I like the topic. The content has no independent sources to verify its notability. Any other media sources would be acceptable whether they be the New York Times or News of the World. This is neither a discussion of censorship. It is a discussion of original research. I fail to see how the to connect in this situation. If you believe that there are articles that need sourcing, you may very well do that work yourself and there is no need to ask others to do your work for you. As you continue to digress from the matter at hand, it is you that is actually keeping editors from improving this article for weeks on end. Reginmund (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to drop your reiteration of OR research nonsense because I don't like but because it has nothing to do with the paragraph as is. If we added soemthing about it as a trend of LGBT new media then maybe, but we haven't done that and you're the only one suggesting that we have or will. So please save it for if and when that happens.

Benjiboi

18:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The last time I checked YouTube is certainly considered a media outlet and until you prove otherwise it seems completely independent of Crocker. Next.

Benjiboi

18:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I never suggested you were out to destroy Crocker, your insistence as repeatedly characterizing his work as "cruft" did that for you.

Benjiboi

18:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I asked you to do any work for me nor did I suggest "others" do "my" work either. I did invite you to look into other articles that are neglected which this one is not. I find your unique approach to building consensus rather repellent to building good articles and your reply has simply affirmed that opinion.

Benjiboi

18:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I've "digress from the matter at hand" at all, in fact I had continued to bring the discussion back to the re-inserting content that was removed and I think should be reinserted. I believe it is written in a manner befitting wikipedia, sourced reliably in relation to the subject of the article (certainly no one is disputing the accuracy of any of it) so I believe its inclusion is warranted.

Benjiboi

18:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Being that original research is the barrel under the paragraph, it has everything to do with the discussion in the first place. Unless you can tell me how this paragraph isn't propelled by original research, there is no credence in referring to it as nonsense. The only reason it could be included if it has been recognised by the media, which as far as I know, it hasn't. When coming to the conclusion of reliable sources, it is wise to take the authority of a media outlet. Hence one having the credentials of an organised syndication. However, anyone can access and upload to YouTube. With that in mind, caution should be exercised when holding the voice of a YouTube vlogger to be substantial. Unless the vlogger is recognised independently to YouTube, there is no reason that the vlogger should be considered credible. Whether or not you have asked me or invited me to do your work or any other work, you are digressing from the subject matter which only prolongs the absence of improvement of the article itself. In normal consensus building, digression and avoidance of progress in discussing a subject matter is quite unnecessary and unless it ceases, it will make me question your motives in editing this article. Reginmund (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your statements seem to fly in the face of reason, imaginary barrels and all and your changing arguments indeed point the finger of "question your motives in editing this article" back to you. I have steadfastly avoided ownership issues with this article but am, by all accounts, the leading contributor to it. Question my motives all you want - I'm not Crocker nor do I want to be. You seem to think we're making some exceptional claim as "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". We're not, we're stating simple facts, this and that happened and here is the rankings as of such and such date. Please consider re-reading

Benjiboi

23:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

When referring to the face of reason, please remind yourself of what a metaphor is, unless you are unfamiliar with the expression "over a barrel". Please enlighten me how I am changing my arguments as throughout this discussion, I have continuously reminded you of the issue at hand which is original research. In this instance, you have flouted discussion over this concern which in turn has forced you to change your own arguments. Exceptional claims do require exceptional sources. You may be stating a fact when referring to the collaboration, but Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. From reading WP:OR, I have not found a single affirmation that explains not all statements have to be supported by reliable sources. Whether or not the vast majority of Wikipedia articles lack reliable sources, the case for this article could only be decided if the information on the collaboration video is elicited. That is of course, unless there is independent information citable making the collaboration video notable. Considering that the rest of the article is sourced up to Wikipedia's standards, any digression from this consistency would be adding in unsourced and unnotable material. In dealing with you, I can't understand the interpretations you put upon your work as it should fall in line with Wikipedia's policies. If you do learn something from me, I would hope it would be that digression from the topic at hand only prolongs the delay of the editing process. Reginmund (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your changing arguments are easily evident in your top comment which I will quote and add emphasis to the three areas you seem to concern, at least as of six and half weeks ago ...

Whereas now you seem fixated on an original research tangent as well as the latest assertation that this paragraph is an "indiscriminate collection of information". Bravo, I think you're confusing yourself. You state "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" word for word what I stated above and, as I noted, you seem to think we're making some exceptional claim but we're not. We're stating simple facts, this and that happened and here is the rankings as of such and such date. Crocker did this video with these people who are notable as is cited and evident and here is what was said about Crocker by Buckley the producer. Then we state here are statistics about the top four gay vloggers and Crocker's rankings in relation.

• Is something particularly outrageous or controversial there?
• Are you suggesting that Buckley didn't say what he did?
• Are you asserting that anything in that paragraph is untrue?
• Are you now suggesting that YouTube's rankings are not accurate?

Please enlighten the rest of us as to what if any statement is untrue or somehow exceptional that the current references don't cover them. The material is sourced and plenty notable as is evident in the paragraph itself - "the first all-gay

Benjiboi

02:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything I have said is not a different argument. Granted, it is the same argument against the use of original research. There is enough cruft on his persona and adding in more that has no independent sources is original research. Michael Buckley is not a notable source (as the article on him was deleted), hence citing him on the grounds of his video being an LGBT fad is original research. And adding a paragraph on behalf of Buckley's video which is one of many blogs that concern Chris Crocker, ranking Buckley over any of the other vloggers just because you think that it is an important LGBT fad is original research. Whereas you continue to digress from the subject of original research, you state that I am "fixated" on it which is ironic considering that as you continuously avoid discussing it. I will continuously bring it up. Bravo, you have just prolonged the delay of constructive editing of this article by continuing to digress from the subject yet again. The stating of simple facts is not a candidate for accreditation because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. What I am suggesting is simply that the section gives no verification of notability or independent recognition outside of YouTube. Neither is the producer of the video notable as there is no article on him. If people are researching Chris Crocker and come across this section, they will probably want to know who Buckley is before considering the citation verifiable. However, Wikipedians voted to delete a previously created article on him because he was considered unnotable. Since Buckley is an unnotable person, how can he be considered a notable source? Reginmund (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Buckley doesn't have to have an article to be a credible source just as we don't require all references to be by those publishers and producers who have wikipedia articles. There are thousands of newspapers and books all of which are fine resources which don't, as least of yet, have articles.

Nonsense. There isn't a shred of OR by reporting the video happened, Crocker was in it and presenting a quote from it. Please cite where that is OR so we all can learn from your vast knowledge.

Nonsense. You again assert that Buckley and Youtube are not independent of Crocker, please support these assertions with any evidence that he is in control of what they say and do.

Nonsense, this is the first and only collaborative vlog and one of only two vlogs that he appears in (that I'm aware of) that he is in and doesn't produce himself. Claiming that the hundreds of tributes and parodies should be on par with this one shows your uneven rationale and lack of understanding f the subject and YouTube as a new media outlet.

Nonsense. Anyone looking for a good article on Crocker will want a well-rounded article that includes items exactly like this. Projects he participated in yet didn't have production control over shows a bit more of what he can do.

The clue train is pulling out of the station please get on board.

Benjiboi

04:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your repetitive appendages of "nonsense" appear to show your hostility in blazoning Buckley's importance to Crocker. Unless you want to make a subtle point on this issue, leave your stubbornness behind and take a mature stance when discussing the collaboration's importance to the article. I could just as well call your points "nonsense". I'll demonstrate how obnoxious it may be.

That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard. - When citing sources that aren't notable to have Wikipedia articles, general scrutiny should be taken under what the source actually is. If it is something such as a paper encyclopaedia archive or a newspaper, it can be considered credible. However, anyone can make an account on YouTube and upload their own opinions. Not anyone can print an encyclopaedia or syndicate a newspaper.

That cruft you just wrote is more inane than Crocker's. - There is plenty of original research involved when you, the editor are the only one claiming that this is an important example of a new LGBT fad without any other independent recognition from other media outlets. Remember, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.

You have no sense of logic. - Please show me the text in which I asserted that Buckley and YouTube are dependent of Crocker.

That is the epitome of absurdity. - Whether or not this be the first collaborative vlog, you have no independent verifications that immortalise this video's importance to Crocker or even acknowledge the collaboration as an important example of a new LGBT fad. From what you are telling me, do you actually believe that YouTube produced the video? I'm not sure if you understand this, but YouTube staff do not upload videos, Internet users do. Just as MySpace staff don't create profiles for people. People create profiles for themselves.

The sense in that drivelling argument has been completely replaced by original research. - Anyone looking for a good article on Crocker will want a verifiable article that includes information based on media information and not the frivolous gossip of an amateur YouTube vlogger. If I were post a video of me interacting with a celebrity, should it be mentioned in an article on them?

Those that gripe and complain between the lines of their insipid arguments might as well be talking about themselves with that tone. Reginmund (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There is too much personal, unvalidated information on Crocker that has been written from an "in perspective"- clearly written by Crocker himself. Why is this still standing while other elements of the article are in such dispute? I smell bias... 71.223.7.42 (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with personal information as in goes in line with

WP:BIO. Reginmund (talk

) 03:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Regimund, I can name so many instances where your argument was written off as an "unvalidated excuse" on Wikpedia that it simply doesn't stand- at least not without exposing a double standard. Besides, most of how the "in-universe" perspective seems to border on vanity page material on this particular page. I become just a little more convinced every time I'm on here that the only thing Wikipedia's good for in the first place is a quick laugh doing that nerd bias thing... 71.223.7.42 (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me which arguments of mine where written off as an "unvalidated excuse". Unless you can actually source your statements, your complaints about the article having too much information may serve as a double standard themselves. Reginmund (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved this to the bottom where it goes. Please remember that new topics go at the bottom of the talk page, not at the top. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 03:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have any particular items you think should be looked at pleas share them otherwise please observe talk page guidelines and take other issues elsewhere.

Benjiboi

14:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

{{

Please be much more specific, I see no error messages, ghastly or otherwise.

Benjiboi

22:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It must just be my computer then, because there is no way anyone would let it look like it does to me for any length of time, protected or not. I have big red Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name cannot be a simple integer, use a descriptive title tags everywhere. I (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it might be on your end as I have nothing like that but I'm not sure what would cause it. It sounds like something is reading the reference numbers as the tag names. You might want to look at other referenced articles to see if they appear in the same manner.

Benjiboi

22:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's on my screen too. TwistedRed (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it on every reference? and is it on other articles?

Benjiboi

23:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And now it's fixed. That's really weird. I (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's a new coding of the mark-up we use to label a reference and the error pops up when a number is in the arbitrary name we give a reference so, to me, the easy fix is to rename any that are doing that. Unless the coding is fixed or otherwise addressed we can deal with it once the content dispute is resolved.

Benjiboi

00:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)