Talk:The Dating Guy/Archive 2

Full deletion records

 * 17:13, 20 June 2011 Athaenara (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:The Dating Guy" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page: talk page for expired prod - note that article may be undeleted and taken to WP:AFD)
 * 17:13, 20 June 2011 Athaenara (talk | contribs) deleted "The Dating Guy" ‎ (WP:PROD: Nominated for seven days with no objection: concern was 'Article is continuously being vandalized, no reliable sources, presiding moderator is unwilling to listen to edit requests' - note: it may be undeleted and taken to WP:AFD)
 * 19:27, 15 October 2009 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) deleted "The Dating Guy" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
 * 00:35, 18 September 2009 Patar knight (talk | contribs) deleted "The Dating Guy" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
 * 01:41, 14 February 2009 PMDrive1061 (talk | contribs) deleted "The Dating Guy" ‎ (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject)

New article
Like it says, this can be undeleted. Feel free to start Articles_for_deletion/The_Dating_Guy if you have issues with it. I'm unsure who kept labelling it as advertising or promotion, but it's a major show on a major station so I think this deserves to exist. AweCo (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Addition to article: Controversy surrounding LICD and TDG
I have added to the article and created a section, stating the claims made by Ryan Sohmer about Teletoon taking his ideas and giving them to another group to make once the contract had expired. The section itself falls with-in the guidelines set forth under Wikipedia's own rules and regulations. To explain:

1.) The information has been made available to the public via Ryan Sohmer's forum posting; 2.) The forum is moderated and subject to all applicable local, state, and national laws pursuant to defamation laws. No law protects the writer (Ryan Sohmer) from making false, libelous accusations. As such, he is bound to the same amount of integrity and penalties that large-scale publications would also fall under; 3.) The item-in-question is not unduly self-serving; Ryan Sohmer is not attempting to take people away from The Dating Guy to his own comic. He is, after all, in a completely different venue; 4.) The claim made by Sohmer is not against a third-party. Both parties have had contact and were working together on the concept. Third-party, in this case, does not apply; 5.) The claim does not rely on personal opinion, nor does it fall under "questionable" pretenses. The claims stated by Ryan Sohmer are not extreme; 6.) Ryan Sohmer has not claimed to be an expert in the field, nor is he claiming anyone else's expertise should be called into question; 7.) Assuming there are other things to validate the existance of the show, the article does not rely on self-posted material, and; 8.) Teletoon, to date, has been refuted in public each time they have attempted to call foul in public. They have been silent on the issue, leading to a greater amount of skepticism in their claim, and placing more strength on Ryan Sohmer's.

Furthermore, stifling and erasing/deleting the article's portions without providing valid reasons brings the integrity of Wikipedia into question. As such, Elizium23 is expected to provide a valid reason prior to any action taken. It is recommended that Elizium23 not take part, pursuant to the following complaint as to why it had been deleted to begin with:

17:13, 20 June 2011 Athaenara (talk | contribs) deleted "The Dating Guy" ‎ (WP:PROD: Nominated for seven days with no objection: concern was 'Article is continuously being vandalized, no reliable sources, presiding moderator is unwilling to listen to edit requests' - note: it may be undeleted and taken to WP:AFD)

Because of this view, Elizium23 is expected not to act as a moderator on this article. Given his attitude towards anyone posting about this alleged controversy, Elizium23's personal feelings are clouding judgment, and he should refrain from touching the article. FaheyUSMC (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC) — FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I have explained WP:RS over and over to you, particularly WP:SPS. I am upholding Wikipedia policy and you are ignoring it. Elizium23 (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And I have made a valid case as to how your logic is flawed. As has been said by others, YOU are unwilling to entertain discussion of edit requests, going so far as to insult people in the previous discussion, as well as referring to us as "meatpuppets". FaheyUSMC (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC) — FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * And if you had any kind of case that would stand up under scrutiny, you could convince another established editor to override me. Instead, there is an army of IP addresses and new accounts attacking the article, writing ridiculous things that can't be reliably sourced. Elizium23 (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact you just pulled the, "If you were right you'd have someone else here backing you up" argument, coupled with the, "I'm deleting whole swaths because other people are vandalizing!" is proof that the argument I have made both holds merit, and you have run out of claims. FaheyUSMC (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC) — FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I do not remember your argument, and I don't care what it was, you need to re-read WP:SPS and figure out the truth for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizium23 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course you don't remember, because you didn't read it completely. I familiarized myself with the rules and regulations, and set out a point-by-point defense of my addition, with Wikipedia's own requirements outlined properly.  The fact you are outright dismissing it because you can't come up with a valid argument only means one thing: don't touch it. FaheyUSMC (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC) — FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Also, if you don't remember my argument, or care, then how can you seriously sit there and say I need to familiarize myself with the rules? Food for thought: if you're going to attempt the moral high road, you might want to at least put some effort into it. FaheyUSMC (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC) — FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I think User:FaheyUSMC set out the point-by-point that supports the inclusion of this information. More importantly, this must be considered within the greater context of WP:V and its purpose. At the end of the day, the policy is about verifiability of information, not the truth of the information. In short, the section about "controversy" is setting out that there is a controversy over this show. What is the source of the controversy? An author who claims that his intellectual property was infringed, posted on his company's website. The source is not cited for the truth of its contents, it's cited to show the source of the controversy. In short, to quote WP:ABOUTSELF, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves", so long as they meet certain criteria. User:FaheyUSMC set out how the source on this matter meets those criteria. Agent 86 (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It very clearly involves a claim about a third party, and this is where the argument falls flat. We have been over this before. It obviously fails WP:SPS in this matter. This is not information about themselves. Elizium23 (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Third-party, in this case, is someone who has no actual part in the issue. For instance, if I were to claim to know what was going on and wrote about it, it's considered a third-party source.  However, Sohmer is a party, and so it does not violate it.  If it did, there would be a lot more moderators taking your side. FaheyUSMC (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC) — FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Now that I have been reminded of the bullshit argument that you have been putting up, let me reduce it for you to something understandable. Let's say I write a blog, and one day I visit In-N-Out Burger, who by your logic become a "second party" in my business transaction. Then I write on my blog about this second party, that they served me a burger made of worms and topped with sewage. Then I link to In-N-Out Burger on my blog with the vague instructions "you know what to do!" and a lot of people come to Wikipedia to add to that article that the ingredients of their burgers are worms and sewage, and they cite my blog as a source. It must be a reliable source because it passes WP:SPS! Elizium23 (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's say a business, that owns patents, publishes a press release claiming that one of their competitors infringes on their patents. The patent listing is available. The argumentation as to WHY the competitor's product infringes their patent is verifiable. This is WHY the SPS section exists - you can definitely cover the controversy over the patent without having to wait for the Wall Street Journal or New York Times to run some story based on the press release. That's the situation we have here: two businesses that have a legal disagreement, not just some person with a blog claiming they were fed a lousy burger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSEVWatch (talk • contribs) 16:45, 31 August 2011
 * There is more than just WP:RS being violated here. Let's look at WP:PILLARS. Wikipedia is built on five pillars, and you're trying to knock down several of them. Oh yes, Wikipedia has no firm rules. Let's bypass the rules to put in this ever so important controversy. But wait, the rules are in our way only if they prevent us from improving the quality of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising, not a battleground, or a source of rumors and gossip. Due to lack of coverage, these allegations seem to fit that criteria. Wikipedia is neutral, attempting to balance all viewpoints of an issue by representing their coverage. You are attempting to defend edits such as this that clearly violate the policy of neutrality. The Teletoon viewpoint hasn't even been covered in any source, reliable or not, so they are rather helpless here. Nobody has visited articles such as Ryan Sohmer or Least I Could Do (except for, the established editor who is attempting to argue the ridiculous definition of third-party), your sole target is the alleged offending party, which further reveals your ham-fisted attempt to force your own point of view on Wikipedia. All it would take to settle this would be a reputable news outlet writing a story on the controversy. They could even interview Sohmer and let him say what he's already said! This would satisfy the need for a reliable secondary source, as well as establish the notability of this event. Once you have that, come back and we will welcome additions to the article. Elizium23 (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Who the hell ever said that edits like that were being defended? That was a crappy edit. That was the kind of edit I'd expect of someone like you, Elizium. And I wouldn't ever defend that kind of edit. On the other hand, sourced coverage of the controversy, even if it needs to be sourced with SPS, beats the hell out of pretending the controversy doesn't exist.


 * I am going to go point by point and see if we can find some way that Elizium can justify his mind-bogglingly asinine claims. Please respond point by point as well Elizium.

Wikipedia:Verifiability lists the following criterion to use a "Self-Published Source": 1. the material is not unduly self-serving; In this case, it is obvious that it is not. There is not a high level of vitriol in Sohmer's posting or in his Kickstarter page. It is a description of a legal disagreement between him, Teletoon, and the creators of "The Dating Guy" in which he feels he and his company (Blind Ferret Entertainment) have been wronged. 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; Teletoon and "The Dating Guy" are the "Second Party" in the dispute, by the textbook definition of "Parties" in an agreement. They are directly, not indirectly, involved. Therefore there can be no claim made about "third party" nonsense. 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; A controversy surrounding the legal status and process of the creation of "The Dating Guy" is necessarily related to the source. 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; There is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity here. 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. There are almost no sources for this article to start with. Part of the deletion cycle of this article earlier, in the several times it was deleted, involved a Teletoon representative astroturfing the hell out of the article by pasting in unsourced boilerplate and edit-warring about the known controversy with regard to Blind Ferret Entertainment. We don't let Gregory Kohs get away with that crap, so we shouldn't let Heather do it either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSEVWatch (talk • contribs) 16:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed one edit personally of someone making stuff awfully personal, because in a debate you don't go that route. Despite Elizium having done so, I will not be seeing my side of the argument devolve.  With that being said, your logic, one again my friend, is flawed.
 * If, say, you did create a blog posting about your hypothetical situation, and said, "you know what to do", you're being vague. No one can say, "Elizium wanted people to vandalize the article!" because there were no explicit instructions, and they can't prove you are leading some kind of group.  Now, if all the edits come from your IP, then there's an issue.  However, looking at it from the point of view you're using, you're trying to run an incitement case, which is a good strategy, I suppose, but other than that it's faulty.
 * The reason it's faulty is because Sohmer never told anyone - implicitly or otherwise - to do anything other than help him with the Kickstarter project. In fact, Sohmer has been rather civil about it (well, he originally was) when the Teletoon employee posted on the forums the next day.  Ask yourself: why is Teletoon looking at a forums of a webcomic that, quite frankly, they would have no interest in?  Admittedly, they could have someone in their ranks who reads it, saw the controversy brewing, and went to higher-ups to let them know.
 * Finally, Teletoon and The Dating Guy has had plenty of opportunities to dispute the claims and provide the evidence to support it. Sohmer hasn't changed his story, and in fact claims to still have the original "bible" as well as other documents asserting his claims are valid.  Teletoon, after maybe a week of being slightly vocal, decided to go on a passive-aggressive assault.  The controversy exists, and that is all people are saying.  No one has said, "Sohmer is 100% correct, teletoon lies don't listen to them".  Teletoon has chances to refute, even in this discussion.  And last I checked, a source doesn't need to have an opposing view before a controversy can be written on here.  In my writings at the Hewlett-Packard article, when I posted about the "Bumpgate" controversy and that HP wasn't taking care of the customers, it was pretty much a one-sided argument.  HP wouldn't talk about the issue, and all the evidence - from both forum posts and blogs that were acceptable to the moderators as verifiable sources - that I used to justify the addition were kept.  That section I put up there is still there.
 * Finally, I will point you to "Ignore all rules", which states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This is improving Wikipedia by saying, "There's a controversy, we're reporting on it in a neutral manner."  Point out to me how my section is not neutral, and I will fix it myself.  If anything, your personal attacks and underhanded tactics to get your critics banned is proof that you are the one violating Wikipedia's rules of conduct. 17:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Probably not - There are a couple of hurdles that have to be overcome: (1) the facts about the allegations have to come from WP:Secondary sources ... not from the person making the complaint. In other words, some reliable newspaper (see WP:RS) has to document the allegation, and that newspaper should be the source (footnote) that justifies the material.  (2) The WP:BLP policy has very strict rules about including material that could defame a living person.  An allegation of plagiarism is very severe.  Therefore, it cannot be included in WP without excellent reliable sources (i.e. several newspapers) documenting the allegations. --Noleander (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Intellectual property rights does not insinuate plagiarism. Sohmer's claims have always been that his intellectual property rights were infringed upon.  In the very basic sense of this, proving plagiarism would necessitate the alleging party produce evidence that the alleged offender has taken whole sections of work and put it into their piece, as well as claiming original creation.  Secondly, the source of the complaint is a first-hand account of what happened, and by Wikipedia's own rules: "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source."  Are you now claiming that Sohmer, a party privy to the talks and negotiations, is a second-hand source, let alone a "non-reliable" second-hand source?  I hope not.  Lastly, until such time as Teletoon claims otherwise and brings it to court, claims of defamation by people not directly involved (you, me, Steve in Accounting, etc.) have no business labeling anything libel, slander, or defamation.  As has been said, the section is there to show that a controversy exists, not to pass judgment one way or the other. FaheyUSMC (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC) — FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * FWIW, user FaheyUSMC was the user that added the "Controvery" material into the article. --Noleander (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @FaheyUSMC: A "secondary source", within the realm of Wikipedia, simply means a source that is not directly involved in the events being described.  So the parties to this controversy are  primary sources.  Although primary sources may be used as sources sometimes, secondary sources (independent of the events, such as newspapers, books, etc) are strongly preferred, especially when controversial material is involved. --Noleander (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, would blogs reporting on the situation count as reliable secondary sources? A quick google search turned up two (this one and this one). If so, then I agree with FaheyUSMC's analysis that it would be fair to mention that there is a controversy.  --The Omega Knight (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Blogs fall under the term 'questionable sources' in the WP:RS policy, and the same criteria apply to them as the self-published source we're already dealing with. No claims against third parties - as much as our friends would like to classify this as something else, it is a contentious claim against a third party. Elizium23 (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Once again, Elizium, Ryan Sohmer is a party directly engaged in the actions mentioned, and he is not a third-party. Ergo, if he is a party involved with the controversy, and he is bringing a claim against another party directly involved, then the issue is no longer a third-party issue.  Furthermore, if you're going to try to claim that someone else mentioning it is not acceptable because it's talking about a "third-party", then you must invalidate and remove any and all mention of controversy on Wikipedia itself that has no foundation in a court ruling because that would become a "contentious claim", by your logic.  Once again, though, you are attempting selective judgment when it comes to this, and completely ignoring other facts, articles on Wikipedia, and the like to try to bolster your case.  Finally, as I have said, no one is saying that Sohmer is right or not.  The purpose of the section is to say, there is a controversy, we're not passing judgment, and that's that.  Last I checked, as long as the source is not self-serving (and, in this case, it isn't) a first-hand account is allowed.  Teletoon still has the ability to refute the allegations, and they are very much aware of the issue, since they have written on Sohmer's forums, as well as here with the original article. FaheyUSMC (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * From Wikipedia's own rulings on second-party sources: "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source." The section in question, written by me, is neither drawing a conclusion in favor of one seide, attempting to analyze the claims, or evaluate and pass judgment against either party.  The section is there simply to say, "There's a controversy, here is what it is." FaheyUSMC (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I advanced your theory (actually, it was Kyphis' theory, which was why I couldn't remember it as yours) at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_49 and it was roundly criticized. They offered the dictionary definition of "third party" as proof. If you want to argue about the definition then you need to address a larger forum than this talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not roudly criticized. Reading over it, only one person said to look at the definition, which still, supports my argument.  Neither Sohmer, nor Teletoon is a third party.  They are both parties directly related to the events.  A third party would be you, me, or Joe in Accounting.  You can, however, make a claim that the creators of The Dating Guy are a third party, but if - and only if - Sohmer's allegations are true, then they are also a party that is directly related to the events as described, even if Sohmer was not involved in the transaction.  And yes, I am using both the dictionary's definition, as well as the legal definition in my argument. FaheyUSMC (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Also, I do believe the person saying to read the dictionary definition is speaking to you in this instance, as both definitions would agree that Blind Ferret Entertainment, Ryan Sohmer, and Teletoon are not third party. FaheyUSMC (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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


 * NO Forum postings are not WP:RS. Inclusion of the material violates WP:BLP and WP:ATTACK. LK (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, I want you to point out exactly where there was an attack made against a living person. If you are indicating it's an attack against Ryan Sohmer, I would point out that the issue was brought up BY Sohmer.  As the section was made in a disinterested manner, neutral in tone, it did not violate any form of the rules and regulations.  You may now put it back up. FaheyUSMC (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I have undone the removal of the CONTROVERSY section, as it was removed without a valid reason. Linking to other portions of Wikipedia standards while not backing up your claims with specific instances of violations is not a valid reason for removal of the section.  A debate can only be maintained when both sides provide arguments and facts to back up their claims.  In accordance with all United States defamation laws, as well as adhering to the standards governed by Wikipedia, the section in question does not fall with-in the parameters of a violation which would require it to be removed.
 * DO NOT just remove the section without providing sufficient details to justify such a move. FaheyUSMC (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * You are misreading wikipedia policy. Please read WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP. Negative material about living persons need proper sources. A charge of plagiarism is a serious contention. A forum post is not a reliable source for such an accusation. Do NOT edit war to include negative material about living persons. Doing so is a serious violation of our policies. LK (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You have yet to actually defend your position using proper debating tactics. Instead, you and Elizium23 have used the exact same thing - a broad generalization of the Wikipedia "rules and regulations" to support your claims.  However, I have gone into detail multiple times to show you how Wikipedia actually suggests that YOU are both wrong.  Until you do so, DO NOT remove the area that has been added as controversy.
 * Furthermore, the article does not slander, defame, or libel any person. The article makes no mention of certainty in the claims, and only states, "Here is a claim made, it's a broiling controversy."  By your logic, unless it is picked up by a major news source, there is no verifiable way to actually ascertain the legitimacy of the claims.  And until one party brings the other to court (which if Teletoon were not guilty, they would have done already, or served a cease and desist, which they have not), it is not likely to see print in a major source.
 * I will be making sure the controversy is, once again, added. You have no business taking it down until you can justify, with specifics, where there are violations.  If this is an attempt to get me to breach the "three-revert" rule, it's not going to work.
 * Lastly, the claim is made by a person against an entity that is not a living person. It is a company.  United States opinion on the defamation laws do support my position here.  Once again, UNTIL YOU CAN PROVIDE DEFINITIVE, SPECIFIC AREAS WHERE THERE IS A VIOLATION, DO NOT TAKE OUT THE SECTION.  Wikipedia and United States law support my position, and if you need to see exactly how it is supported, go through this again, as it is clear you have not.  Semper fi. FaheyUSMC (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * No. Although there are now three sections on this page about the same issue, I have not weighed in here, and some of my points may have been lost in the previous article deletion, so I will weigh in on the RFC for posterity. WP:V states that
 * 1) any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation.. The proposed material has been challenged. Is it attributed to a reliable source?
 * 2) Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sohmer's forums are not third-party. Blogs reporting on his forums have no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy.
 * 3) self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.
 * 4) Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as: ... 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; i.e. someone else
 * 5) Exceptional claims require high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; No mainstream sources have been located which cover these allegations.
 * 6) If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The notability of the controversy has not been proven.
 * WP:RS states the following:
 * 1) The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. In Sohmer's forum posts, all we have is his word against Teletoon's.
 * 2) Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Blogs have no editorial oversight and cannot be accepted as reliable sources for contentious claims.
 * 3) Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
 * WP:NPOV reads as follows:
 * 1) Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. I have shown that the proposed sources are not reliable. Therefore, the point of view that they represent does not bear inclusion in the article.
 * WP:NOT states:
 * 1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: ... Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
 * In summary, the allegations that have been made are not sufficiently verifiable; the sources proposed are not sufficiently reliable; the controversy is not sufficiently notable; and the material does not represent a neutral point of view. If the time should come when a reliable, third-party news organization with a reputation for fact-checking takes up the story and publishes it, the claims can be introduced in the article. Such publication would ensure notability and verifiability beyond the shadow of a doubt. Elizium23 (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"Controversy " Section
I just removed it. It's sole link is to a forum, forums are not reliable, the information is not verifiable. The forums cannot be used a reliable source for the controversy, however, if reliable sources are found, it can be included. I'm not an expert on Wiki policy (by any stretch) but that's my read of the policy on verification and reliablity. @- Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons ► Markab -@ 17:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC) @- Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons ► Markab -@ 17:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * per the discussion above, which you have failed to read, revert yourself. This is your one warning. Please do not be complicit in WP:CANVAS type behavior. Your deletion is considered vandalism.


 * There's no consensus above ( not officially declared anyway)

It looks to be 3 to 1 against inclusion. The only one for it is FaheyUSMC. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct. However, I would suggest you read the definition of vandalism, my removal isn't such, per Wikipedia's guidelines.

@- Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons ► Markab -@
 * I concur with removing the Controversy section.  Unless some Reliable Sources are found which are secondary sources, that material cannot be included. --Noleander (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As Elizium23 has a financial stake in this matter, he needs to recuse himself promptly from the matter. It is severely disappointing to see someone in his position and in his situation acting with such little decorum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.46.17.206 (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — 96.46.17.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I was unaware that there was !voting involved. I guess we can do away with discussion forums like AfD and the like. Anyhow, I am of the opinion that policy more than warrants the inclusion of the controversy section, as I've set out above. Agent 86 (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If this controversy were so significant, so important, that it deserves to be mentioned in an encyclopedia: shouldn't we be able to find some newspaper articles about it?  But we cannot.   Look at it this way: Say I have a legitimate dispute with Wells Fargo bank.  I sue them.  I then edit the WP article on WF bank and include material about the suit, citing my own lawsuit and website.  Is that acceptable for WP?   Of course not. Now, if Time magazine writes an article about my lawsuit, now it is a candidate for inclusion in WP. --Noleander (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a matter of public record, though. Anyone looking at it is able to see your complaint.  However, I agree that that is not valid, insofar as you do not have a judgment against Wells-Fargo.  I give you that without a judgment, a defamation claim is difficult to justify
 * With that being said, your argument falls short because you, the party, are the one making the revision and addition, thus necessitating that you recuse yourself on the basis of a conflict-of-interest. In that, you would be creating vandalism, because your part can neither be neutral nor impartial.
 * I now see exactly what you are trying to say. You want reliable secondary sources.  However, by your own definition - as well as the definitions of what that means to other moderators who have chimed in - the only sources that would be reliable would be, say, The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times.  However, even if that happens the source would still be Sohmer's claim, which is found on the forums.
 * It will all come back to that point. Your defense will be, "Every source is going by that forum post."  At what point does that stop?  Does Sohmer need to give private interviews?  And if that happens, how will you be able to verify that much?
 * I have found some other sources that have quoted the forums and drawn attention to it. Once again, that forums post will be the primary source until such time as Sohmer makes another announcement.  I don't think he would carry on about this for so long without a good reaosn.
 * Finally, it was not a 3v1 in agreement against me. Multiple people have come out and said that they support me.  Are they admins?  No.  Are they moderators?  Dunno'.  Are they editors?  Yes. FaheyUSMC (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — FaheyUSMC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Sigh. To boil the policies down to their essence, as applied to this article, the source is not cited as proof of its contents. Rather, it is cited to show the fact that the statements were made. In that regard, I see it as on-side with policy. I think there has been reasonable and sound analysis set out above to support inclusion of the section, and no amount of !voting will change that. Agent 86 (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that there is a bit of an edit war brewing here (I note my last changes were unceremoniously reverted without any further discussion on the talk page, despite the nature of the dispute at hand). After reading the edit history of the article, it seems that User:Elizium23 is skirting the edge of the rules (particularly WP:3RR) and seems to be displaying a bit of ownership in the article. It might even be appropriate to bring this to the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. For that reason, I'm not going to touch this article for love or money for the next little while - I really have no vested interest in the article or getting sucked into this any further.  Agent 86 (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought this had been said, but apparently it didn't post to the Discussion. I have updated the Controversy section with two separate sources outside of Sohmer's initial forums posting. FaheyUSMC (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, is that the article "The Dating Guy" is too insignificant to be noticed by any reliable secondary sources (news sites and newspapers). This article has been deleted multiple times, and the discussion over the Controversy is already close to triple the size of the actual article.  If Wikipedia barely notices "The Dating Guy", I highly doubt any legitimate newspaper will.  Some notable blogs have reported on the controversy, but so far that's it.  Personally, I'd vote for the Controversy section to be Included, but only if we can justify improving and keeping the overall article.  If we cannot, I'd say delete the wiki article and be done with it.  --The Omega Knight (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Independent Sources for Controversy
Hey Folks, we've got some valid independent sources that will justify having a Controversy section:

and

A chip in from both sides of the conversation. If someone has some time, a proper section can now be posted.

Cheers,

BurnHavoc (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — BurnHavoc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * That is a blog, with no editorial oversight or reputation for fact-checking. It clearly fails WP:RS as a questionable source. Elizium23 (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Isn't that Ironic Department
I find it somewhat ironic, if not amusing, that by deleting the article but not the talk page, the "controversy" that some people wanted to cover up is better preserved and more prominently set out than the subject matter of the former article. Agent 86 (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)