Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Tim Buckley (artist)

Tim Buckley (artist) has been recreated as a standalone article. At its AFD it was redirected here, but that was 6 months ago. Since I've always supported redirection I thought I'd ask for opinions here rather than redirect myself. --W.marsh 12:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I say keep it redirected. No point in having two pages we need to defend against vandals.Thrindel 19:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I say put it back up. People say that he is known for nothing other then the comic. But couldn't the same be said about the two Penny Arcade guys and pretty much every other webcomic creator? Anyways, why doesn't he deserve one? Jest because it get a lot of vandalism, does not mean it should be deleted. If you had a computer with a lot of pop ups, you just don't get rid of it, you fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.180.69 (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a computer...

The reason that the guys from Penny Arcade have their own pages is that they are far more notable than Buckley. Along with doing commissions for major gaming labels, they run a major charity and host the world’s biggest gaming convention. The only pages I’ve seen on webcomic creators are if they are notable for doing something else. And anyway, Ctrl+Alt+Del may be popular, but it’s not enough to give him a page, there are more popular webcomics out there, such as PvP that have no pages on their creators. Tim Buckley may make a popular comic, but it’s not enough to make a full page on him. Sanlador, 15:02, September 21, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanlador (talk • contribs) 22:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Biggest video gaming (not gaming; Gencon is still around) convention in the country (perhaps), but not the world. The Tokyo Gaming Convention alone beats it on vendors and visitors...Just thought I should point this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.71.144.65 (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw two cents into the ring here: Buckley also runs a (smaller) gaming convention; has an animated series; and has his CADMedia wing of his website. I don't think any of that merits an individual page for him, but he is a bit more widely achieved than "just a webcomics guy". Justin Bacon (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe a string of potentially non-notable achievements equal one or more notable, encyclopedic ones. There are larger LAN parties, more popular animated series and game related websites with regular readership that do not themselves merit wikipedia articles. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Is it article-worthy to mention that Mr. Buckley has vandalized the PvP article? VTNC 17:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source you can cite to prove that he did this, that is both unbiased and appropriately verifiable? Ie, no forum or blog posts?Thrindel 19:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How about this?

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=32072999

Considering the fact that said person tends to edit Tim Buckley and CAD pages, as well as adding

a line saying "Seriously vandalised CAD and Tim Buckley pages", I'd say this is highly likely to

be Mr. Buckley himself.

In fact, considering the fact that all of his changes involve either removing any kind of

criticism from any page he's involved in, or adding to people's pages about CAD, I think it's

true. -KBKarma. Here and there. Exactly when not needed. 18:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Picking a random anonymous IP address and calling it his is hardly what I'd call "proof", and your opinion or gut feeling isn't a verifiable source. Thrindel 19:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Tracing this IP (68.60.213.27) places it in New Haven, CT -- his city of residence. Use atracer of your choice. I used GeoBytes[1]. This is a bit more compelling than a "random" anonymous IP, however still not concrete. Tim (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, using an article's discussion page to post links and poorly sourced material that you know will not make it into the article is not a workaround for spreading unverifiable rumors. This is a WP:BLP issue as well.

"We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space."

Thrindel 17:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. I am not trying to vandalize this article. Furthermore, you are also violating policy by blanking out information on this page that is trying to be sourced, and furthermore, you are not assuming good faith. You've already been warned to stop vandalizing this article. Rebochan 17:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You are posting a link that does not meet the strict WP:V and WP:NPOV requirements of a WP:BLP article. I refer you to the above quoted section of the WP:BLP that states questionable, poorly sourced and potentially libelous material must be moved immediately and without discussion. If you can find a source that meets these requirements, then please bring it here for discussion. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not a place to air personal grudges.Thrindel 17:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Again with the bad faith claim. I have no grudges against Tim to air here, namely because I don't have any grudges against Tim. I only provided the link because this discussion came up and that is the source of the claims and the IP address. Furthermore, the policy is still under debate, and we're still debating whether the source is valid or not. You say it isn't. I want to discuss this before we move forward. Please stop making personal attacks against me.Rebochan 17:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is attacking you. There is no debate as to whether the source is valid. As it's a forum post, it immediately doesn't qualify as WP:V. As it's a forum post originated by a rival webcomic author it fails WP:NPOV. Finally, the post doesn't contain any real proof. It's one guy saying "this IP address has made these edits. The IP address belongs to Buckley, but I have no way to prove it, so just trust me". As the entire claim is unverifiable and is accusing a living person of an action, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.Thrindel 17:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As per BLP, and NPOV and WP:V, Thrindel is correct to remove information that is potentially attacking if it is not verified by sources that meet wikipedias standards for sources. Forums and blogs very rarely if ever meet this standard. Thrindel, perhaps you could have left a polite note with Rebochan to start with stating that you believed his source fails to meet standards, and Rebochan, you should have then gone to this talk page and discussed it calmly with Thrindel. I think both of you have tried to do this, but it has gotten a little too heated. There has now been an AIV report, but I can't find any evidence thus far of anything more than a passionate defence of policey. Thrindel was right to remove poorly sourced harmful content from the article, perhaps he or she could have been more polite in notifying Rebochan, however I can't find any personal attacks, and removing harmful content is not vandalism. I would appreciate someone telling me more about what is going on here. SGGH ^speak! 17:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

the source provided here and here is not suitable for wikipedia. No discussion forums will suffice as sources, particularly for somethign as serious as accusing someone of vandalism their own article or an article they are related to. Thrindel clearly checked up on the source before he or she removed it, and I support this decision that that particular source is unsuitable, and should remain off the pages. Therefore I believe that Thrindel is guilty of nothing more than perhaps not giving enough of a polite message (at least not one that I can find) but nothing more. I am, however, still awaiting any evidence of personal attacks that were reported to AIV. If no personal attacks crop up, I would consider the issue resolved.... SGGH ^speak! 18:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a response waaaaay the heck back, to where an IP address was referred to as a "random IP address". Here is a CAD usage stats page, on which that IP address (68.60.213.27) is pretty clearly listed. Google cached version used there for highlights. You can see the same IP here and here, more recently. Now, while this isn't solid evidence of this being Mr. Buckley (nor is that what I'm trying to say) it would be silly to think that it is completely unrelated.

I'm going to take a line here to be perfectly serious and state that I will not allow modification of the above line, specifically modification in the form of removing the hyperlink. It is entirely non-slanderous, and merely provides a solid correlation between the previously mentioned IP address and CAD outside the boundaried of Wikipedia.

I like CAD. I have no issue with Mr. Buckley at all. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. However, it is irresponsible to refrain from any mention of alleged incidents and criticism, as there clearly is criticism. Cricicism does not need to be sourced as such; the simple length of these two discussion tangents is enough evidence of criticism, and if you wish to dispute that fact then I more than question your judgement, as well as other aspects of your psyche.

What is under question is the validity of the various forms of criticism, and so far I see little solid evidence to support such criticism. There is an abundance of circumstantial evidence, and I believe there is enough that some mention of criticism is warrented. There's certainly no need to be making allegations of criminal activity, but a mention allong the lines of:

"There has been criticism of CAD, and specifically criticism specificly of the artist Tim Buckley. These criticisms range from the percieved lack of good will on the part of Mr. Buckley towards some of his audience, to more serious reoccuring allegations with an as-of-yet lack of evidence to support them."

That's my two cents, as a wikiphile first and a long-time CAD reader second. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "cad-hotels.com"? If anything that appears to be some fan-made blog or something, and in no way affiliated with the actual Ctrl+Alt+Del website or its creator. I have never seen that website linked from the CAD main page, nor have I ever seen Buckley use (nor can I imagine he would have any reason to use) "Onesite" as he clearly has his own servers for all of his hosting. And all of Buckley's websites are listed on the left side, with the exception of maybe wintereenmas.com. So all you've done, if anything, is point out that most likely the anonymous edits came from a fan of CAD.

Additionally, criticism is opinion by nature, not fact. "The New York Times criticized CAD for its use of vertical panel stacking instead of more traditional horizontal comic strip style, blah blah blah". That might be a criticisms worthy of inclusion into the article, because it would be A) verifiable and B) from an acceptable, and notable source. "Gamerdude43543 on some forum doesn't think CAD is funny" is in no way a criticism worthy of inclusion. It can't be cited, and it's not notable. You can't just put "There is criticism of this comic" without sources, and so far nobody can provide acceptable sources. What is it that you think makes generic criticism of this comic exceptional from every single other comic, actor, tv show or book out there that gets criticism? Everything in existence is disliked by someone out there. How is it notable? If you look at the Paris Hilton article, there are a number of the dumb things she's done listed, along with verifiable sources. Nowhere in that article do you see "lots of people dislike her", even though we all know it to be true that a great many people dislike her. A statement of that nature is neither notable or verifiable.Thrindel (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

First, if you can't knock off the condescending attitude, then you need to take a step back from this topic. This entire time you've been completely ignoring the "good faith" rule, which is more than a little hypocritical for someone that has been quoting acronyms left and right. I'm not the first one to mention this, and it's time for you to start toning it down a little.

As far as the site, I don't have a full grasp of how to interpret it just yet, mostly because I haven't gotten around to researching all of the IPs so far. I never made any kind of claim that this was the actions of Mr. Buckley, just that the IP certainly doesn't seem to be random. Should it be the work of some nutcase fan (and if it is a fan, I'm pretty comfortable listing them as a nutcase), then it just means that either way the issue is solved with solid evidence. In fact, since the IP is out of Georgia I'm relatively sure it's a fan, associate, or a proxy (in which case who the hell knows who it might be).

You're entirely missing what I said about criticism. I did not say if any of the criticisms/comments I've seen so far are fact or not. I said that there are criticisms, and that is fact. There is a difference. If you would take a moment, take a breath, then you can see that. I was listing an example of what could be included, not a final suggestion for something. Also, "Gamerdude43543 on some forum doesn't think CAD is funny" is not being suggested by me, and is quite obviously not something to be included. Since that's not what I'm trying to propose, using that argument isn't going to work here.

Now, what I am going to do, instead of sitting here bickering with you, is actually check around for sources and information that leans in one direction or the other. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to assign your interpretations of my attitude to a text entry which is lacking body language and tone of voice. I'm not being condescending, this is a discussion and I'm countering your arguments.

First of all, you said that the link "provides a solid correlation between the previously mentioned IP address and CAD". The closest we really get is to say "the person who made the edits is familiar with CAD, as their IP address is also seen visiting/running what appears to be a CAD fan site (though seemingly not maintained in any fashion)" Though if that IP address is making edits to the Ctrl+Alt+Del article, doesn't it already stand to reason that they are familiar with Ctrl+Alt+Del (or at least one would hope). I mean, all of our IP addresses would be found in the logs of the (real) Ctrl+Alt+Del websites, would they not? What was meant by "it's a random IP address" was not that it was some person appearing out of the blue to make edits, but that it's just a series of numbers and none of us have the tools required to put an identity to the IP address. Connecting it to a CAD-related website doesn't seem to reveal anything new, is all I'm pointing out.

Second, you didn't really address my question of why you find it necessary or beneficial to the article to add an entry along the lines of "there has been criticism of this comic", when we can't add what any of those criticisms are, or source them with valid links. I'm not really debating that the comic is criticized, as there are clearly people on this page that have criticisms of the comic, so yes it is fact. My challenge is, what makes the opinions of these people worthy of inclusion to the article? Because as I said, you could choose anything in the world and find someone who has criticisms of it. What makes the fact that this comic receives criticism exceptional and notable?Thrindel (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Content removal

I am going to remove the secondary characters and characters no longer in the strip from this article, since the main article List of Ctrl+Alt+Del characters covers them already.--ProtoWolf 07:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism revisited

I'm removing this section of the discussion as per WP:BLP (for the exact same reasons as the argument above; see SGGH's ruling on the subject before reverting this). I am also going to leave SGGH a message so that hopefully he can come give this a look for us again and make a determination. However in the meantime, all I'm seeing here are accusations with no WP:V, and they don't belong in a Wiki article, not even the talk pages when it concerns a living person.Thrindel 07:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thrindel, while you are quick to point out WP:NPV, WP:BLP and WP:V (with good reason in some cases) I would like you to review a few pieces as well, WP:TALK as well as WP:COI. After making a brief review of your edit history I am starting to have serious reservations as to your objectivity and would like this investigated by someone with more experience on the subject. (I freely admit that this is in part a violation of the "assume good faith" rule of WP:Talk, but there you have it)

Additionally it is generally very impolite to simply obliterate user talk comments off hand when found, if you disagree with them. If you can find me a person affiliated with Wiki who will identify the text of any of my posts as libelous here, I'll eat my hat.

Westermeyer may have been out of line, a bit, but, unfortunately that information has been disseminated across the net pretty thoroughly, and *link removed* is a pretty good listing of some of the places where the story has survived. While I don't believe it's fair (and probably not legal) to post information regarding this directly to the article, deleting it repeatedly will only result in it resurfacing in new and shifting forms on a semi-regular basis. This is something I believe you (Thrindel) are well aware of, given the fact that in my cursory glance you've removed information on the subject at least five times, correctly sighting WP:V each time. Now, I understand that the allegations are unverifiable, but, there has to be some way to put this to rest regarding this surfacing repeatedly.

I'll freely admit that I do not know the best way to deal with this piece of information. And for the most part I am content to wait until information surfaces from a WP:V or until some form of blog evaluation system is implemented to separate the genuine journalistic endeavors from the thirteen year olds with a grudge against their former favorite band.(StarkeRealm 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

I agree with you that removing people's comments may be considered rude. However when those comments contain accusations about a living person which cannot (in any way that has been shown thus far) be proven to the satisfaction of Wikipedia's standards, WP:BLP instructs that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material – whether negative, positive, or just questionable – about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia". I feel it's pretty self explanatory. You admit yourself that this poorly sourced material doesn't belong in the article. The discussion page for an article is not a "workaround" for getting this stuff onto Wikipedia.

Many of these blogs and forum posts being linked to are accusing this man of serious criminal action, and while the same thing may have been copy and pasted onto numerous sites, that in no way acts as a substitute for proof of its validity. Having seen a few of these "accounts", I've noticed inconsistent, changing and shifting "details" between them, and in not a single one anything that even approaches "proof". And until you, or I, or someone else can provide that proof, the entire ordeal remains "questionable". And questionable material doesn't belong attached to a wikipedia article about a living person, a person who can potentially be harmed by such unfounded accusations.

So while these blog authors or forum members may have no problems throwing around serious allegations without what appears to be a shred of proof to support them, I don't that that you, or I, or certainly not Wikipedia wants to have a hand in accusing someone of such a serious crime. As such, and until an administrator intervenes and says otherwise, I will continue to remove these unfounded links and accusations. And I considering the ruling above by SGGH, I feel confident that this is the correct course of action.Thrindel 22:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a BIG difference between an accusation and an inference. It's a well known fact he banned many, many accounts off of his forums. He admits to it. The reason he banned them, and this is consistent across the internet and various accounts, is that he banned them because of a rumor. Someone accused him of said thing and he freaked out and banned thousands of accounts. That's not "disputed".

Also, looking at your edits, essentially every single one of them is removing some criticism of Buckley himself or the webcomic, for some reason you have dug up somewhere. it's apparent you're more concerned with preserving the public appearance of Tim than having an accurate article. I would equate you to a holocaust "revisionist" more than I would equate you to a wikipedia editor. R.westermeyer 20:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you really just compare some rumors about an internet cartoonist with the holocaust? I'm sure he did ban people for spamming his forums with that stuff. Hell, I would too. But thousands? Because I've talked to some people that were around during it, and they say it was more like fifty people, who kept creating new accounts to spam the forum. This is exactly my point... if you want to throw stuff around like that, back it up with something. Because it is disputed. I'm disputing it. Show proof, that's all I'm asking. If you know he "freaked out and banned thousands of people", you must have copies of the forum logs or something, yes? You must have some sort of proof that it was "thousands" and not maybe "hundreds" or "dozens", unless you're just taking someone's word for it, and frankly only the person doing the banning, or someone with access to the records would know for sure. Have you ever played the game Telephone? For all we know he banned a handful of people for accusing him of something like that, and then with every retelling of the event it got a little bit more dramatic, a little bit more elaborated.

My edits here concern the public reputation of a living person, AND having an accurate article, as so far nobody has been able to provide proof of any of these accusations. Should such verifiable proof surface, I'll accept it and be done with it. And demanding accurate, factual and neutral information is a staple of Wikipedia. And in the future I would appreciate and recommend that you keep your thinly veiled insults to yourself.Thrindel 20:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I compared you to a revisionist, not the comic. It's apparent to anyone who takes a look at your edits, all you do is prowl this page waiting for someone to suggest a criticism of Buckley or the comic, and then do your damnedest to keep it out of the article. As for how many people he banned, every account I have read of it has a number over 1,000 accounts. Plus, it wasn't "spamming" it was a single topic that started the whole thing. My proof is multiple accounts from different places/people that all have the same time-line of events, i.e. the name of the topic that began it is the same, the "war" that ensued is described the same way in numerous places, and to boot he and his admins admit to it happening.

Your edits here have one purpose, and that is to keep any criticism out of this article. You prowl this article and it's talk pages relentlessly, day and night, furiously deleting any comments or article additions that make Tim out to be anything but a saint. You don't care about the rest of the article, you only apply your standards to any criticism that might surface. R.westermeyer 06:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My goal is to keep unsourced accusations out of the article. You can believe whatever you want about these rumors, based on whatever criteria you decide is "good enough" for proof. However Wikipedia has standards for this sort of thing, above and beyond "someone told me on the internet" or "I heard it from my brother's neighbor's aunt". I'm simply challenging you to provide proof. That's all. If you can't, then it seems this discussion has run its course.

I'm guessing you can't, since it seems you've now turned your attention to attacking me, rather than attempting to back up your original claims with any wiki-acceptable evidence.

After a quick forum search, I found a forum post from Tim where he states that the number of people banned was less than 100. So there it is, straight from the guy that runs the website. It's probably not wiki-approved, being a forum post and all, but it is a first-hand account.

And in closing, I guess my primary question here would be... so what? Proven one way or another, how is any of this important to an article about the comic? How is this notable? He banned some people from a forum for accusing him of a disgusting crime. Whoopedy-doo.Thrindel 07:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, first, there was a article where this material was directly relevant, which would be Tim Buckley (Artist) but, as I recall, you supported the idea of that being rolled into this. At which point, Buckley's behavior becomes fair game for this article, since the decision was made to combine both. If you believe information about Buckley's alleged treatment of his fans is not relevant to this article, then it is relevant to his own page. Which at present is this one. Additionally it can be argued that his failed attempt to disband his WoW guild, and behavior online that can be substantiated is relevant to a bio of him. And saying it's not is a little like claiming that say that this:

Sutherland was arrested early September 25, 2007 on misdemeanor drunk driving charges (his second time since another incident in 2004) after failing a field sobriety test. He was pulled over at around 1:10 a.m. in West Los Angeles, where he tested over the state's legal blood alcohol limit and later released on $25,000 bail.

Has no place on the Kiefer Sutherland page. (Yes I did rip that quote directly from the Kieffer page.)

It is conspicuous (and a little strange) that there is no criticism of any kind left on the Wiki page for CAD. (StarkeRealm 01:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

There was no discussion as to "rolling the Tim Buckley article into this one". I supported the redirection of that article to this one, as it was decided he wasn't notable enough to require his own article. As you can see, there was no "combining" of the articles. The information from the Tim Buckley (Artist) article did not move over here for a reason. This is an article about the comic strip. I fail to see how, if he's not notable enough for a separate page, it's notable that he disbanded a video game guild. People stop playing games all the time.

It's not conspicuous or strange that there is no criticism on the page. Criticism is opinion. That Kiefer Sutherland thing contains nothing but fact, and is sourced to a credible newspaper. I have no idea why you're using that as an example to support your argument.Thrindel 05:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not a valid point, since this is an article about webcomic, not about Tim. Criticism is directed towards the comic itself, not the autor. And deleting parts of the talk vas VERY mature. --RockyMM 17:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the webcomic, but the additions they were suggesting, and which we are discussing here, were about Tim Buckley, a living person. So WP:BLP is a perfectly valid point. And removing those parts of the talk are supported via WP:BLP. I'd recommend you don't start throwing insults around and other editors here. This isn't a forum environment.Thrindel 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The additions that I was suggesting were directed specificaly towards webcomic, but you deleted my comments without bothering to read anything that I have said. I don't visit Wikipedia regulary, so I was unpleasantly suprised when I've found out that my comments on this Talk page were deleted. If in fact, the additions that I was proposing were about Tim Buckley, then those should be deleted per off-topic (since this is a webcomic article, not WP:BLP. Also, I hate when editors just throw abbreviations without further discussing reasons for their actions. It is rude, and shows how little do you value other people's contributions. Also, it is as if they're trying to differentiate serious from part-time Wikipedia editors. I thought that every single addition is valuable regardless of who may have contributed.

It is evident that there is significant amount of criticism of the webcomic so I think that it should be included in the article. I was suggesting one, ableit comical, source, in hope to inspire other editors into finding more serious sources.--RockyMM 18:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So what is a "significant amount" of criticism? Everything on the planet is criticized by someone somewhere. Every movie, every book. What makes criticism of this webcomic notable above and beyond anything else, that you feel the need to include mention of it without valid sources? Find a newspaper article, or a magazine article, or a TV report that has criticized the comic, and we'll talk about its inclusion in the article. But blogs and forum posts aren't valid, because there is zero accountability there. Anybody can sign up with any name, on any forum, any number of times, and post anonymously, as much of whatever they want. I don't see why 'Cooldude4576' not liking the comic is wiki-worthy. So if we remove the WP:BLP stuff concerning Buckley, and stay with the "I don't like the art, I don't like the humor" stuff, what makes it "significant?" Because I'm sure you can find that stuff about any of the larger, more popular comics on the internet.

And in addition, if you want to add a portion to the article about how there are people out there that don't like the comic, then proportionately you would need to add a section about the people that DO enjoy the comic. And since neither you or I can come up with any specific numbers as to how many people in the world like the comic and how many hate the comic, it becomes a whole matter-of-opinion mess that isn't suitable for Wiki.Thrindel 19:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The comic and Buckley are heavily criticized across the web. The ROMicide thing, for one. He is attacked all the time for the way he makes his comic (the "copy/paste" method). He didn't link to "Child's Play", instead creating his own charity. In one memorable instance on his forums, someone in high school had made some sort of tribute animation for some kind of an art class. Tim then said something to the effect of "I'm contacting my lawyer to see if I can sue you for anything.". Nobody likes the guy. All criticism is opinion, but it is a solid fact that "someone" has been criticized for "something " by "someone".

And frankly, your deletion of comments on the talk page is simply unacceptable. You have done it to multiple people including myself now, citing things like "libel" and WP:e.g.. You don't seem to grasp the concept of libel, though, nor do you understand the reasons why Wikipedia is so worried about it. Posting an opinion on the talk page is NOT libel. In short, leave the comments the hell alone. R.westermeyer 07:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody likes the guy, eh? I'd love to see you back that one up with a source.Thrindel 16:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)'

Highlighting some exaggeration on my part doesn't do much. It was plain that I didn't really mean "nobody", yet you chose to only respond to that. Obviously, you cannot find any other arguments and are resorting to the inevitable position of someone losing an argument, you have started to ignore what I said and focus on how I said it. R.westermeyer 17:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps I should have pointed out that writing that Buckley has done these things without backing them up with any proof/sources is exactly what Libel is. The laws against Defamation are in place for the exact purpose of preventing people from just saying anything they want about someone. And if Wikipedia were to allow this unsourced material to remain on their web site, they could potentially be charged of it as well. That's one of the reasons they have very clear rules for its removal. In fact, any of the blogs and forum posts you'd like to link to could all be named as defendants if Buckley ever saw them and decided to sue for defamation of character.

I don't have to focus on what you're saying, because you're still saying exactly what you've been saying since the beginning of this discussion, which is "I want to accuse Buckley of this stuff, but I can't find any valid sources to back it up". And since in this country people are innocent until proven guilty, and it is the accuser's responsibility to prove guilt, and you cannot seem to do that, it would see that you are on the losing side of this argument.

I distinctly recall Ctrl+Alt+Del running banners for Child's Play the first year the charity began. What charity of his own did Buckley create? I don't see him running a charity. I see him supporting a different charity each year. And furthermore, why is it a criminal act to not link to Child's Play? What if he did want to create his own charity? So what?

If Buckley threatened to sue someone, link to the forum post.

At this point, it would seem this discussion has run its course. You are not producing any new sources for discussion on inclusion into the article.Thrindel 19:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In another note, I understand that you feel these things should be a part of the article for whatever reason. However things of this nature must be backed up with sources that meet Wikipedia's standards. I am charging you to produce valid sources for the various accusations you continue to make, otherwise they stand to be removed from the talk page as per WP:BLP in respect to the living person in question. If you cannot do this but insist on continuing to add these accusations to the article or talk page, then I think it is pretty clear that we are at an impasse. If you would like to involve Wikipedia directly, we can petition for a mediation of the matter.Thrindel 21:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Buckley cannot sue anyone for libel/defamation because of the talk page. They are opinions. That's like saying George Bush could sue me me because I said I don't like his Iraq policy. Saying things on the talk page isn't something anyone will be suing about, so you shouldn't be removing things from it. I haven't gone into the article saying "buckley is a _____", stop acting as if I have. And yes, I know BLP applies to the talk page as well, but there is a difference between me posting something libelous (i.e., I make a claim, have sources which back up said false claim). Me posting "well, I think Buckley should have a criticism section because of A, B, and C" does not constitute libel. It is an opinion.

Furthermore, you don't seem to understand what I think should be put in the article. I'm not saying we should be cataloging ever little thing he has done to piss someone off, I'm saying that there should be at least a MENTION somewhere in the article that he has done a fair amount of things people do not agree with. I'm sure I could find multiple sources that all say nearly the same things about the ROMicide, the charity thing, threatening to sue etc., although I'm also sure your clipboard has a significant number of WP:___ links to get the section removed somehow. In light of that, I'm merely trying to get some mention of the fact that a good amount of people do not like him. He has even been accused of vandalizing wikipedia, to boot.

I do not feel the discussion has run its course, and again I don't appreciate you accusing me of editing this article for my own benefit. (Which I understand, you have been accused of in the past) R.westermeyer 06:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're accusing him of a great many things, and you can't back up a single one of them. I don't think you understand libel and defamation (and saying he can't sue is ridiculous. People can sue for anything these days). Saying "I don't like Bush's Iraq Policy" is an opinion. Saying "Bush is killing kittens to support his Iraq policy" is libel if you don't back it up with some sort of proof. You're not here saying "I don't like Buckley", you're saying "Buckley did X and Y and Z, but I have no proof." It doesn't matter where it is, a forum, a Wiki talk page, or a national newspaper, if it's printed it's libel. If you're saying it to someone, it's slander. There aren't magical places where it doesn't "count" because you're "just talking".

You want a mention that a "good amount" of people don't like him. Again I ask, what is notable about that? Furthermore, how do you plan to prove/measure what a "good amount" is? Do you have a polling system in place where you can reach everyone that's heard of the comic? Or are you just basing this on the number of people that post in an internet thread saying they don't like him? And who are you to speak on the mindset of everyone else? Are you even taking into consideration all of the people that read the website and do like him? How do you know that the number of people that don't like him is dwarfed by the number of people that do? You don't, and you probably never will. Nobody will. Which is why vague comments like "A lot of people don't like him" aren't allowed in Wiki articles.

So now that we've established that vague blanket statements won't work, you have the option of entering some fact about one of the reasons that he's supposedly disliked by many. Except you are unable to do that either, since you can't back them up with any sources.

You mention he was accused of vandalizing a wiki article? I suggest you look at the discussion section right above this one, where a ruling on that was already made. A ruling which applies to all of these similar accusations which you insist on continuing to bring up. And endless amount of arguing is not going to alter the Wiki rules, here. They're pretty straightforward. I'm not accusing you of editing anything for your own benefit, but finding multiple unverifiable, biased sources does not equal one valid source. I can not understand why you continue to argue the same points that have already been shown un-wiki-worthy.Thrindel 16:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to say that there is definitely some people that dislike him the artist, and others who similarly dislike the comic itself. As to whether we'll ever find any source that is reliable though, that would be a matter of contention. To put to context, RoMicide is in the urban dictionary, theres the blog which supposedly dissects how bad CAD is in loving detail (which aren't my words, but the online producer of PCMag.com), and then you have the Hockey Zombie forums, which to my understanding is like a direct result of the RoM incident. There's also the CAD entry in the encyclopaedia dramatica which I really think isn't worth our time but is exceedingly negative and mentions the RoM incident down to the date it happened. Then theres that comic which seems to insinuate that Tim Buckley is a narcissist.

All that I'm pointing out is that there is some level of dislike towards either the artist and/or the webcomic. What I do believe it doesn't give us though, is any verifiable sources. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 03:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, no verifiable sources. Which has already been established, so it doesn't really require you re-linking all of the unsuitable blogs and forum posts that have already been removed for the reason that they don't meet the requirements to be considered valid sources and violate WP:BLP. As has been confirmed by an administrator in the discussion section directly above this one.Thrindel 04:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Was unaware they were already linked before and have been removed. Doesn't really matter. I am just curious over what appears to be very vocal opposition towards the webcomic and artist. If it turns out to just be a very vocal minority, then I would concur, that there is nothing to add on the subject. I can keep digging though I doubt I'll come up with much. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 06:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to remind you Thrindel, that WP:BLP is not valid point in this article. RockyMM 11:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. WP:BLP is one of the biggies in Wikipedia and it can't be circumvented by wikilawyering over the specific nature of an article. No article, regardless of its main content, may violate the policy laid down in WP:BLP. There are no exceptions and given the nature of the criticsm that frequently crops up in this article, not only does it have BLP issues, it's a posterboy for them. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

CAD does not have any humor. /discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.145.235 (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your personal opinion hardly suffices to wrap up any discussion on the matter so simply. If you wish to discuss something for inclusion in the article, then please do so here. But wikipedia is not a forum, please do not treat it as such.Thrindel 06:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone misses it, my contribution in the Vandalism section above is also directly related to this discussion as well. It simply made more sense to include there due to my direct mention of the IP address that is... well, addressed up there. Consider my response as concerning both of this matters, because it is. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The biggest issue surrounding this section is that the events described, and the observed actions of the subject were all experienced by an online community. The nature of everything described here took place on forums or in a video game and were only documented on blogs or on other forums. Essentially, the "evidence" supporting everything mentioned above will never satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia as they stand unless provisions are made to accommodate them.

If it is that important to some people to make these things known (via Wikipedia, anyway), then it seems to me that those who were directly involved will need to come out in the open with their real names and describe what happened as they saw it. That allows for accountability, and heck, witnesses work in a courtroom, so that should also be acceptable here, right? I don't mean here on the talk page, but presumably if some dedicated individual performed their own investigative study or something. Tim (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really feel like putting a first and last name on "ForumUser01" really adds any accountability or credibility to any claims. Yes, witnesses are called in courtrooms to corroborate evidence, but that evidence has to be there in the first place. No convictions are made based solely on witness testimony, and rightfully so given the alarming number of witness testimonies that are often years or decades later proven false. Additionally, lying under oath is a criminal offense, which is at least some motivation to most people to be truthful in their retelling of accounts. As this is nowhere near a legal preceding, with no true accountability or consequences for the accusations being made against this person, I would assume that "ForumGuy01" would have no less trouble claiming any of these things as his user handle, than as "John Smith", if you get my meaning.Thrindel (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This videogame critic for escapist magazine critized CAD for being prolix here VTNC (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A specific page of CAD that contains a lot of text appearing for less than a second on Yahtzee's review of Mass Effect while he talks about games that contain too much dialogue hardly qualifies as criticism. Yahtzee could have chosen any comic whatsoever. CornedBee (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's very likely to be chosen specifically for the video, as Yahtzee reads the SomethingAwful subforum Your Console Sucks--where CAD is very commonly criticized for containing too much text. In fact, there is an entire thread devoted to criticizing videogame webcomics, with CAD mentioned in the title. [2] --24.216.252.216 (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You're making some leaps in logic there. It might make sense to you, but that doesn't meant it's true, let alone verifiable. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent interview with Yahzee, dated march 21st 2008: http://www.gamespot.com/pages/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=26300119&sid=6188212 he states: "Ctrl-Alt-Del is the Rubbish King, sitting proudly on a throne of rotting meat." If that can't be considered a valid source of criticism, then I don't know what possibly could. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.86.232 (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would absolutely consider that a valid, verifiable source for some criticism (and the first one I've seen here, I might add). Whether it merits inclusion in the article I think would be a topic for some discussion, and it would probably be best to give it its own heading, as this particular heading is, at this point, pretty convoluted. WP:UNDUE may be a consideration here, but I'm not quite as familiar with the circumstances of that particular rule, and whether or not that would be considered a "minority" or not.Thrindel (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it considered valid criticism that all of CAD's comics are "giffable" since every panel is a copy-paste of the previous one or do I have to find a source documenting this phenomena? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VTNC (talk • contribs) 15:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "valid"? Is it true? I don't know, that's not up to us. If noteworthy, relevant criticism of this nature exists, then we can source it and include such verifiable criticisms. Otherwise, no. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In this remark Cheeser1 neatly sums up my oppinion of the rest of this discussion aswell. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Posted in response to the original comment in this large thread + my reply -C1

I do not understand. Why is well-sourced negative criticism of this comic impermissible for inclusion? If it does not refer to the author herself, how can it violate WP:BLP? - DaoKaioshin (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well sourced? I haven't been watching this article for very long, but none of the "criticism" seems relevant or well-sourced (see immediately above your comment). Furthermore, WP:UNDUE applies, and we ought to at least limit the amount of space we give to criticism. Comments disparaging a certain person's comics are just as much BLP as anything. Jimbo said it himself: BLP applies to everything, even userpages. A lengthy (or even moderately sized) criticism section could affect public perception of someone's artistic work (which may be their livelihood) and this content is, by proxy, covered by BLP. More importantly, it's unsourced and BLP isn't the only place WP:V and WP:RS apply. Unless there is significant, meaningful, verifiable commentary by critics or others whose opinion merits consideration, and unless it's properly integrated into the article (meaning it follows, among other things, WP:UNDUE), then it shouldn't be in the article. Now, if there is such criticism, then maybe we should put it in here, but I haven't seen any (but like I said, maybe I missed it). --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read WP:BLP and I've seen it used to suppress the addition of any negative statement to this article. As lean as it is now, this article contains few details about the artist. Does WP:BLP proscribe the addition of critical commentary regarding the quality of the comic itself because its author is still alive? I do agree that WP:UNDUE is relevant, though I do not believe that all negative evaluations are immediately trivial assertions. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP isn't the only factor at work - WP:V, WP:RS, etc are far more relevant. I haven't seen any sourced criticism at all, and unsourced criticism has no place here for those reasons. It also has BLP implications, especially when some of it is fairly disparaging of the artist personally (as is my impression). Objective, well written, non-disparaging negative criticism may not have as serious BLP implications, but not all of the content that's been added has always been BLP-proof, especially when you consider that this is not a forum for personal negative criticism of this artist's work - if it becomes that, then it's bordering on BLP trouble in that regard. BLP has not be "used to suppress the addition of any negative statement in this article." You have the wrong impression.--Cheeser1 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible User Bias To Be Reviewed

While reviewing all of the information my friends and I have archived regarding the critisim of Ctrl+Alt+Del and Tim Buckley, and grazing over this talk page to get further familiarized, my friends and I came across something potentially rather amazing.

Noticed that the user Thrindel has been here quite a bit editing both the main ctrl+alt+del article, and the talk article. But quite a bit we mean more than any other user here..

It appears that at the very same time the alleged Tim Buckley IP address stopped editing wikipedia, Thrindel began to seriously edit here at wikipedia. That with only a 10 day difference in between the two editors. It also doesn't help that very similar to the pattern of edits that the Tim Buckley IP made, Thrindel has spent his entire two year existence here at wikipedia ONLY editing ctrl+alt+del's article, the talk page, and the talk pages of users editing either ctrl+alt+del's article or talk page. That's it.

That smacks of some form of self-interest to me. As such, I submit the wikiscanner page of edits made by Tim Buckley's alleged IP address [[3]], and the user contributions page of Thrindel [[4]] for peer debate, cross reference and discussion. My friends and I personally believe that Thrindel may in fact -be- Tim Buckley, somebody with a ties to, or somebody with a personal interest in keeping the wiki clear of anything that may be seen in a possibly negative light with regards to Tim Buckley or Ctrl+alt+Del.

What does everybody else think? Two years at Wiki, and all the edits circle here? I think it's just too coincidental to be a coincidence. Alphus Omegus (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, as has been repeatedly discussed, that IP address was never confirmed to belong to Tim Buckley. I would appreciate if you stopped referring to it as it as fact. The original revelation came from a forum post, which is first and foremost not a reliable or accountable source. This has been discussed ad nauseum, and has been ruled by admins to be innapropriate for these pages, as such I am editing your comment to once again remove these links and claims. Please do not insist on reposting the same source and citing it as fact.

Second of all, and more importantly, I do not believe you are assuming good faith WP:AGF, and I do not appreciate these accusations in an attempt to discredit my intentions here. I view a number of Wikipedia articles, on various subjects of interest to me, however in most cases I possess no new knowledge about said subjects that is not already included in the articles. As is even the case with this article, I do not possess any additional, noteable, sourceable and factual information on Ctrl+Alt+Del that has not already been included in the article. My edits here, however, do not require me to have additional knowledge to add to the article, only an understanding that it is unacceptable to add these unsourced accusations to an article where it concerns a living person. They are not my rules, I am simply trying to enforce them to the best of my ability, in an environment that is obviously under constant vandalism and attack from people that clearly have no intention of trying to better the article. I am neither Tim Buckley, nor do I have any personal relationship or vested interest to him outside of being a reader of his work, and not wishing to see someone's reputation slandered without some reasonable proof. There is a reason Wikipedia has these policies in place, and I would not have to make nearly as many edits to remove the same few unacceptable sources over and over again if people did not insist on reposting them all the time, when they clearly don't measure up to Wikipedia's standards. And I will be bringing your breach of good faith to the attention of an administrator, in the event that this subject may require mediation/arbitration.Thrindel (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the IP address. Cultural things happen on the internet all the time, and until wikipedia begins to recognise things that don't just happen in pop culture or on major news media, then it will just hamper documentation of the cultural flourishing that occurs in this unique environment. Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source in colleges and universities. It's too subject to bias and misinformation -as it is-.

Be my guest. I understand the need to police articles. You've been policing the same article for over two years. It just seems a bit, I don't know...Unhealthy? Besides, it's not like I didn't check everybody else on the page too. I didn't have bad faith in anybody in particular, you just seemed to fit a very specific pattern that I thought was rather unusual. Other people have brought it up in previous talk areas on this page. I just thought to myself "Man...This guy has been doing nothing but police this one article for two years!"

I would either have to assume that you have some sort of personal vested interest in this page to dedicate two entire years + of your life solely to it on wikipedia. That or you need to get out and see the internet more, because if you want so badly to be the police dog you seem to want to be, then why not turn that sort of mentality towards other articles here at Wikipedia? Why just this one for two solid years?

I always kind of thought that the good faith/bad faith thing was well intentioned, but not beneficial or even appropriatly enforcable. Like I said earlier, even colleges and universities don't have enough good faith if you will in wikipedia to count it as a source. If you live in a world and expect everybody to be nice to you, then you run the risk of being incredibly surprised in a most terrible way. You cannot blindly assume that everybody on the internet have the ultimate list of morals that web pages are run by complete darlings. Perhaps that will get me B& some day (or today for that matter), but you can't just live by blind assumptions in this world. Alphus Omegus (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And the reason colleges and universities don't allow it as a source is because of people attempting to add information without any including any proper citation, such as the case here. Forums are not considered inappropriate sources because Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge the internet, it's because of the anonymity, zero accountability, and the willingness of certain people to use both of these facts to just say absolutely anything they please about anyone.

Whether you agree with good faith or not, it is a common etiquette around Wikipedia. Attempting to attack me personally, or discredit me, does not in any way may the sources or information you are trying to post any more valid. These policies are in place with or without me here to enforce them, and it really doesn't require that much dedication to put a link in your bookmarks and check up on it every once in a while. Additionally, you need to have some clear evidence before you accuse someone of acting in bad faith, not just your assumptions. I might have just as easily questioned your vehement motives for inserting this information over and over again, but I don't. I assume you are editing with the intention of genuinely improving the article, even though your methods violate policy. That is the purpose of good faith, so that discussions don't devolve into personal attacks.

Now since you've decided to turn this discussion away from improving the article, and direct it towards personal attacks to me, I would like to suggest a truce[5] until we can get some third party arbitration here.Thrindel (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to submit to a truce, and I'll even go as far as to concede that it's possible I'm wrong in all of this. But you to should also concede that it is quite odd that an individual would patrol a webcomic page for two solid years, and the reason they give for not editing -any- other page is because they don't know enough about -any- other subject that wikipedia covers? That reason seems a little bit flimsy. One would assume that a person would learn something valuable about at least -some- other topic in the span of two years. Any other topic. Coming to this one page every month for two solid years...smacks of a person who desires to keep control of the image of the article or a person they claim they have absolutely no connection to. At least concede to me that this seems a little bit more than just strange.

It's also interesting that wikipedia doesn't even acknowledge the medium that it exists in. That seems a little hypocritical. If wikipedia doesn't trust the internet...and wikipedia is -part- of the internet...is wikipedia telling me I shouldn't trust wikipedia? Hence the difficulty behind good faith/bad faith. For the same reason you cannot blindly trust most of the internet, you cannot blindly trust the editors here at wikipedia.

By the way, my "Vehement Motive" as you put it to edit was only to edit My Own Statements, and I was doing so for clarification on my own statements. I haven't deleted or edited the post of any other individual, not once. You have. At least you were cordial enough to give reasons, but if you want to be admin-police, then you need to work on more than one page.

Also, is not the statement "I might have just as easily questioned your vehement motives for inserting this information over and over again, but I don't." the same kind of "Personal attack" you claim I'm launching on you? Isn't that like saying "I might have thought you were here to screw all of this all up, but I don't"...Kind of a backwards way to make a rather pointed statement. I'm not trying to launch a personal attack, I'd just like some clarification, and so far your only answer as to why you edit no other page on the entire wiki is because you've managed to keep yourself ignorant and completely oblivious to absolutly every other topic covered here. Is that not just a little bizzare?

Fine, you have had your last words and I have had my rebuttal. I agree to a truce until a third party arbitrator can be assigned. I am interested to see how this can be amicably resolved. Alphus Omegus (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate way to discuss a possible conflict of interest. One does not "submit for peer review" other people's contribution history, in support of such an accusation. If something serious is required (ie a checkuser) then one may submit a request for intervention (ie at WP:RFCU). However, what's really been going on is violations of biography policy that have been reverted by someone who actively edits this article. I see no reason to magically assume that this person is editing with a conflict of interest - it appears as though others have already weighed in on this, including administrators, and the content in question is not appropriate (although I will admit that I have not followed this issue's development). This line of discussion is unproductive and out-of-bounds. Alphus Omegus, you need to assume good faith in this matter and move on. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any chance of a WP:RFCU doing any good here, since those are usually used in sock-puppetry cases, which this really isn't (even if User:Thrindel and the I.P. are one and the same, that wouldn't constitute a violation of WP:SOCK). It's a conflict-of-interest issue, and as such should be taken to WP:COIN. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest taking this to WP:COIN. - 98.212.218.182 (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on what? A hunch? The editing pattern of Thrindel, despite his editing being motivated by policies and guidelines, confirmed by other outside editors? You feel free to file a report on your own, but I don't think it will get anywhere and it will certainly not be supported by me. WP:COIN was suggested if there were a legitimate concern about a conflict of interest. I believe there is hardly such. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing the Winter-een-mas Section

Until someone can provide a good reason for it to be included. Preferably, a reason that can be referenced in a way that doesn't link directly to the CAD site. --Cerebrus13 21:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... though it appears someone else has already done just that. Cerebrus, if you want to remove this header, and my post, by all means, go ahead. (StarkeRealm 19:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Not to sound like a total idiot but, that item was linked to another page, which creates a dead link to an article that does not exist. Specifically a link can be found on the unofficial heading under holidays, therefor, shouldn't it be left in as it has a link and redirect thereof? --69.54.129.205 10:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should stay, if we're going to include information about the themes of this comic then winter-een-mas section should definitely stay. It usually is used as the central theme during the "holiday season". R.westermeyer 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph in the page intro sums it up pretty well, the rest was useless fluff. Besides that, the only references for the section were for individual CAD comics, which isn't exactly a "reliable 3rd party." --68.252.68.98 22:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it has to be a 3rd party when the sources are used in articles about themselves. Since it's an article about Ctrl+Alt+Del, the CAD website can be used as a source. At least, that's how I'm reading the section in WP:V.Thrindel 22:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If it had been rolled into a section about the plot, and the fictional holidays linked to that, that's one thing, and it's fine. Giving it it's own heading is a little fuzzier. Does it have any implication beyond just the plot line of the comics? It should be mentioned in the plot section by all means, but, there's no need to go into great detail about it especially if the information isn't relevant to much of anything. At best the section was trivia in disguise. (StarkeRealm 01:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

CAD Radio

Is it really necessary to include this on the Ctrl+Alt+Del article? Sure, they're assosciated, but this article was written for the "gaming-related webcomic and animated series written by Tim Buckley," and not for a web radio that really has nothing to do with the comic other than support its fanbase. This isn't really any direct attack, I am just wondering why you really need it there since it's not a very notable or distinguished topic, and doesn't really have a direct influence on the comic and animated series itself.--70.230.149.172 03:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to roll all those headers at the bottom, the print issues, the radio and the animated series into a alternate formats header. (StarkeRealm 22:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

How about no. 216.55.210.213 00:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)SomeX

Why does this have a heading at all? From what I understand it no longer exists and the only links to it that I can find are quotes from this wikipedia page. It seems a lot like a Vanity piece made by the users who are named there to me. It's not notable. Mmkotler (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. There have been absolutely no counters to this controversy other than "How about no." This is a general encyclopedia, and in relation to the web comic this topic is absolutely irrelevant. It does not influence the comic, it is not affected by the comic, it has nothing to do with the comic except support its fanbase. It resembles a fan-quip, something that the average skimming Wikipedia user will not really need to know and will not miss. I have not seen any real counter-arguments despite this being up for discussion around several months and I will assume that it is safe to drop. However, if it is that important to the article feel free to replace it and add your reasoning to here. Have a nice day. --RusskiDan (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Arguments and the article

Having read through the arguments on the talkpage, reverting of comments, changing other members comments and accusations as to whether or not someone is Tim Buckley or not. There seems to be much more interest in arguing than improving the currently not so great article.

Is there a need to discuss all that? This is after all the article about the webcomic. --carocat (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked an administrator to come in here and maybe offer some guidance on the dispute. Things were nice and quiet in here for about a month, until a day or two ago.

As per the article, I went to skim through the website to see if there was any information that could be added. What about that Ctrl+Alt+Del picture packs and the animated series is now offered on Xbox live [[6]], would that be article-worthy? Maybe also some additional information about Digital Overload? Thrindel (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been cropping up a lot over the last few days..

Im thinking the article could do with a rework, there are some duplicates, uneccessary long sections and the character section which doesn't need to be as long considering there is a seperate article on it. I was going to go through and move things about a little in the next few days unless someone has objections? carocat (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the character section is a bit redundant given the separate list page. Perhaps just a brief overview paragraph of the main characters, and then the link to the list page?Thrindel (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[unindent] I've shortened the character section a fair bit, as it was basically just a copy and paste from the main character article. The rest of the page looks a bit of a mess as well, the lead is quite long and difficult to read. I'm going to have a go at that later.

What about images, a logo? carocat (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We could use the logo... do we get permission? Is it fair use? How does that work? The article used to have one of the comic strips as an image, but it was removed at some point.

Also concerning Daler's most recent edit to the main article... I'm not sure that was PoV. It was a direct quote from the sourced article, whose author seems to have done research on the subject. It was not a wiki-editor's assertion. Thoughts?Thrindel (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the edit. The source IMO seems a little vague on it. Plus it was awkwardly phrased. This article in general needs some reviews, positive and negative.

As for the image, I'm not 100% on that. WP:IUP is the explanation.. carocat (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not finding a lot of reviews of webcomics (real ones anyway, not just webcomic bashing). CAD was reviewed at Comixpedia [7], though admittedly it's pretty old (2004). They don't seem to have done an updated review though.

As someone above mentioned, CAD was displayed in a video review where the reviewer mentions comics that are very wordy, though it doesn't mention CAD by name. I'm not sure if that really constitutes enough of a "review", or whether it was directed at CAD solely, or webcomics in general.

Also came across this recent interview[8], which doesn't seem to contain any real new information, but might possibly be used to cite some existing information/pull quotes from?Thrindel (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Originally, I was going to rewrite the content to explain CAD's part in the 90's web comic boom, but I couldn't decide how to do it -- hence the "rewrote" bit in the edit summery that I forgot to change. Ultimately, I removed it because like Carocat said, it was awkward and irrelevant. The problem with containing reviews in an article is that everyone has an opinion on which reviews should be included. I say we avoid the issue entirely: keep the article N-POV and omit any reviews (which are by nature opinion pieces.) Daler (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

CAD had no part in the 90's webcomic boom. CAD premiered in 2002. Am I missing something? =David^(talk)_(contribs) 23:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I misread the part I removed, which was "one of the big successes in gaming comics after those of the mid-to-late 90s." Thus my possibly confusing edit summery on that edit. Daler (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

For a webcomic that is consistently and openly under heavy critisism, I think the "reception" section of the article is borderline insult to wikipedia. 195.137.110.134 (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, "reception" probably isn't an accurate title for that section, as the entry there isn't really about reception of the comic, but more its level of success. I'm going to merge that line, with the source, into the main paragraph somewhere.Thrindel (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article have a 'Reception' or 'Criticism' section somewhere? CAD is one of the biggest, and most controversial, webcomics on the Internet; this article would be better if we could add some comments on or reviews of it from reliable third-party sources. (See, for example, Penny Arcade (webcomic)#Analysis, The Order of the Stick#Critical Reaction and Awards.) It's not compulsory (PvP doesn't have one, for instance) but it would improve the article. Terraxos (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it has pretty much been determined that a criticism section needs to be just left out of the article altogether. It just invites vandalism and people trying to push in the same old rejected "sources" over and over again. I agree with Daler's assessment that the article is best kept NPOV. Focus on the (sourceable) facts, leave the opinion to internet forums.Thrindel (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

All of the arguments from previous talk page discussions boiled down to simply whehter or not there is a reliable third party source or not. If there is a reliable third party source, whether or not it is good or bad, it should be fine to include. The condition is that the source is verifiable, like those found in Terraxos' comment for other comics. 64.231.251.230 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, if a NPOV, V and BLP source can be found, we'll definitely discuss its relevance and finding a place for it in the article. Up until now though, all people have brought forth is the same 3-4 forum posts or personal blogs, that are clearly neither NPOV, V, or BLP.

On another note, do we really need a link to another Wiki in the article, when all of that Wiki's information has been directly copy pasted from this one? Isn't that a bit redundant?Thrindel (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is an expectation that the content of the two wikis will diverge. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete unsourced info?

"Ctrl+Alt+Del was also the birthplace of a self-created post-New Year's holiday dubbed "Winter-een-mas". The season lasts all of January, much like the Christmas season, but the actual holiday itself is January 25 to January 31. The seasons sole purpose is to celebrate video games and the video game community. Gamers (most of which are readers of Buckleys comics) gather to participate in mass or independent gaming. Many others have also taken to making decorations for the wintereenmas holidays."

Any direct sources to prove that gamers gather to participate in mass or independent gaming during this non-holiday? I've certainly never seen or heard of any source other than CAD itself making these sort of claims. 206.107.108.225 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

CAD is a direct source. The article blurb does not attempt to make any specifications about who or how many gamers celebrate, only that they do. And upon (admittedly brief) review of newsposts, that's all CAD has ever asserted. Though perhaps that sentence in the article might be reworded towards intention rather than practice, if others find problem with it. Thrindel (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all: There is an official wintereenmas site. Additionally, I may add that I myself celebrate Winter-Een-Mas; all us geeky people at my school have an annual winter-een-mas party. Additionally, while I know that generally forum posts are not a reliable source, if one checks out the winter-een-mas forums on aforementioned site, you will notice that indeed, there are many people celebrating Winter-een-mas. There is even a whole section of the forum dedicated to events, party announcements, etc. Personally, I think it deserves its own article, but apparently others don't think it deserves mention at all. --Tech Nerd (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Step one to meriting mention on Wikipedia: Reliable, independent sources. wintereenmas.com would not be such a source. Published sources with an editorial review process (e.g. academic journals, newspapers, books, etc) are what we're looking for. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to mention that all the presented Wintereenmas sources present the "holiday" as idiosyncratic to readers of the comic itself. It strikes me as fancruft, akin to using yiffingiscool.com as a source for the prevalence and general social acceptance of furries. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Of note: I didn't know fancruft is overloaded as WP jargon. I meant it in the colloquial sense, though it might also apply in the technical one. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fansite

Okay, I tried to trim down some of the excess trivia and overly long, poorly sourced descriptions without gutting its content. I also fixed or otherwise eliminated the many grammar mistakes that had snuck in. I think the article might still be a little verbally pudgy, but this is a start - DaoKaioshin (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Winter-Een-Mass

Citing the official Winter-Een-Mass cite to prove that people actually celebrate it is like citing the Bible to prove that God exists. It won't do. You need a reference from a secondary source. DDSaeger (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Worst example ever. Gamestop/EB/Gamecrazy has Wintereenmas sales. That seems like enough of a reason to include. Considering things like Super Tuesday and Pi Day and Towel Day all have their own full articles, I think a blurb on the CAD article is perfectly acceptable. Morte42 (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And just to reassert your attempt at an example, citing the Wintereenmas website to prove people celebrate it is like citing the bible to prove people profess Christianity. You're version is both asinine and containing flawed logic. Morte42 (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Morte, I don't think DDSaeger meant any sort of insult, it's just that the w-e-m site functions as a press release rather than some sort of observation. Also of note, citing scriptures of any sort, sans external context or preexisting, axiomatic belief in its truth, is not enough to verify that people adhere to it. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand the concept that people think Winter-Een-Mass is not a holiday or that The Church of Gaming is not a religion is a bias opinion. It is like saying talk like a pirate day is not celebrated and there is verifiable proof that many people, businesses and communities celebrate it. This is the same for the new religion Scientology that is based off a science fiction book that many believed was not a real religion and there was no proof that anyone practiced it as a religion. It only took a few famous people to make everyone believe. If there needed to be verifiable proof that a holiday or religion was real or celebrated before it could be sited then every holiday or religion would have to be removed. There is no way to provide a reference to a religion or holiday that someone out there is discredit just because they do not celebrate or believe in the religion or holiday. No one has verified what make a holiday or religion real or fake. If it has to be on a calendar to be considered real then there is a lot of religions and holidays out there that are all going to be discredited. I do not have any bias to any religion or holiday and think they all need to be available to everyone to enjoy. - Ducwarn (talk) 07 Marchy 2008 (UTC)

The question is, is it notable? Chan Yin Keen | Talk 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be notable in relation to the comic itself, just not in the grand scheme of things. I mean we don't want to trim down the article to just "It's a webcomic", but we clearly need to be drawing the line somewhere as far as what additional information is included in the article.

Obviously we don't need descriptions of every plotline that the comic does, but if there is a recurring theme that is also "celebrated" by readers of the comic (Winter-een-mas I'm pretty sure about, the church of gaming I don't know), I think a very brief mention would be fine. I think we just need to find the wording that satisfies everyone. Perhaps just remove the lines about people celebrating it, and just state that the comic hosts these recurring events, or something.Thrindel (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

@ Morte42: Then cite Gamestop/EB/Gamecrazy. Don't cite Tim Buckley's site. Tim Buckley's site proves nothing but that Tim Buckley organizes a holiday. The fact that people actually celebrate it needs verification from reliable sources. As for your change to my example... it doesn't make a difference. Using a book to prove people actually profess what is in that book does not make a legit argument. DDSaeger (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Should there be a criticism section?

There are a lot of articles and people on the web critical of CAD on the internet, do you think a properly sourced criticism section could work? 58.111.125.224 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh not this again. I would recommend that you read this entire page of discussion. This has been discussed ad naseum. Thrindel (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If the comic were not the major and, debatably, sole notable achievement of the author (at least on wikipedia), then it would be possible to add both negative and positive reception from high quality critical sources. Such high quality, verifiable sources have yet to present themselves, as this webcomic (and most others) has yet to gather a large and matured enough community to create them. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that a criticism section is probably unwarranted in the Wikipedia article, for the simple fact that if you want to read about criticism of Ctrl Alt Del, you can visit umpteen other websites on the internet that share that opinion. But just because other people have that opinion of CAD doesn't necessarily make it necessary to include a criticism section. If you have a problem with the comic, don't read it. Like me. Simple.58.108.241.214 (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

buckleybox

is this comic where the term `buckleybox' came from? it should be mentioned

Well, if it is, as with everything else, you would need to provide some valid sources and prove that it is both notable and warrants inclusion in the article. We're trying to trim down the article to basic facts. Random, irrelevant trivia is being pruned.Thrindel (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

proper source for Yahtzee's CAD criticism -- finally

Here is a notable, reliable source for Yahtzee's perceived criticism of CAD - a gamespot interview: http://www.gamespot.com/pages/news/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=26300119 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.235.137 (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing that through all this, you've failed to address the fact that a single one-off comment in an interview in a blog doesn't really override WP:UNDUE. You've made it clear (and stated explicitly) you are interested in editing this article tendentiously. Why don't you leave it at that? (note: I've removed your duplication of copyrighted material - it is not proper.) --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well to be fair, I think GameSpot would qualify as a bit more credible than a blog.

But I'm glad Cheeser1 posted first, because I'm sure he has a better understanding of WP:UNDUE than I do. The points I was going to bring up for discussion on this matter revolved primarily around a) whether or not a single man's opinion would be considered a "minority" (I don't doubt that others share his opinion, but short of guessing, we don't have other V/NPOV/BLP sources to add to it), b) whether it was notable enough for inclusion and c) whether it even counts as a criticism. His distaste for the comic is made pretty clear, as is that of the gaming comic genre in general, but he didn't list any real criticisms of this particular comic. I don't know that Yahzee is notable enough that his dislike of the comic is notable, if that makes any sense?

Another thing I thought would be a good idea to discuss here was the fansite/cleanup tags on the article. There is a desire to trim the article down to necessary facts, and editing out "fancruft" and unecessary praise/criticism. If I'm reading WP:UNDUE correctly, by adding a negative criticism, we would also be obligated to add some source with an opposite opinion (someone who likes the comic, for instance) in order to have all points of view fairly represented. That might open the door to building up the article with unecessary opinions and trivia again. Thrindel (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the opinion of a game developer, not an art/comic critic. It's not relevant or important. WP:UNDUE isn't an "equal time" provision, it's a "fair time" provision - no legitimate body of criticism really exists for this work (positive or negative) so we include neither. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh I see. Okay, that makes sense then. Thank you. Thrindel (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, Yahtzee _is_ a critic rather than a developer primarily. And his notability stems from his work at The Escapist, a magazine devoted to the culture of videogames. I'd wager odds that CAD falls under this umbrella. That said, the article, as it is now, makes no critical assessment of CAD at all and does not seem to merit expansion in this regard. Also, as colorful as his judgment is, we must take into account that the lion's share of his reviews---of everything--is negative. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Yahtzee has elaborated on his criticism regarding CAD (Permalinks are for the weak): http://www.fullyramblomatic.com/ RoadKillian (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that a personal blog is even less suitable as a source for criticism so... it really doesn't need to be noted at all.Thrindel (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, Thrindel. It depends on the blogger. Suppose Richard Dawkins blogs that "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is a terrible, nausea-inducing documentary. Or Roger Ebert blogs that "Superhero Movie" is a terrible, nausea-inducing spoof. It's fair that a respected and prominent critic's blog on a subject be treated with more respect than any old blog. I'm not sure if Yahtzee has achieved the stature that would merit a Wikipedia entry on his CAD-hatred, but he is an extraordinarily popular reviewer and worthy of an interview by GameSpot. It would probably be appropriate to edit the article on Yahtzee himself to detail his hatred of Ctrl-Alt-Delete or post a link to his criticism at the bottom of this article, but that's as far as I'd go right now. Jamieding51 (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's true, I'm sure there are exceptions in specific circumstances, as provided by the second paragraph of WP:SPS. However I don't believe the second paragraph applies to this developer's blog (I probably should have been more specific in my previous comment), as he is not an established expert on webcomics with work in that field published by a reliable third party. The more pressing issue here though, as I understand it, is still WP:UNDUE, for the reasons outlined by Cheeser1.Thrindel (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

He's not an established expert critic. Can you honestly compare him to Roger Ebert? I don't think so. WP:UNDUE trumps whatever marginal exception this criticism might have, and the fact that he hates virtually all webcomics should be a red flag. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That Rogert Ebert argument is something of a strawman. The notion of establishment and expertness in critical commentary is a fairly broad brush when it comes to verifiable sources. The crux of any non-inclusion of fullyramblomatic.com (aside from the non-perma-link) is that the source in question is topping the page is a disclaimer about the rarity of reviews. From this, we can assume that his most recent posting was written in his capacity as a private individual, not as a reviewer under a fact-checking, legally liable umbrella. A partial analogy would be Richard Dawkins attributing his personal dislike for laplanders in the context of evolutionary psychology. Such a source would not belong on Sami_people. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to openly agree that it's something of a strawman argument, but it could have been reworded into a more valid form. When it boils down to it Yahtzee and CAD are under the same umbrella (though a slightly larger umbrella at times, due to CAD's (comparably) infrequent commentary on games themselves), with the scales of journalistic professionalism being tipped toward Yahtzee. While CAD is most likely known by more people, Tim is not employed as a professional game reviewer or given a weekly preview in a primetime show. Instad of comparing Yahtzee to Ebert, it's much more like comparing two comedians that are both significant in different ways. If Yahtzee should decide to make a more official reference (which I personally hope he does, if only based on the fact that it would be nice to actually have such a review) then any arguments against its inclusion would be pointless. As it stands I feel it's more of a questionable point but not entirely without logic.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable third-party sources

While we're all jumping up and down concerning Yahtzee as a source, does this article have any reliable sources at all? There's just:

• An old revision of this article at comixpedia
• A one-paragraph-per-page review of digital overload from a cookie-cutter hardware review website
• Several from Tim Buckley

...which leads me to WP:N and WP:WEB. I get the impression that this article doesn't have any reliable third party sources. This article really really needs reliable third party sources. RoadKillian (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but recall that WP:N is not a requirement that these sources be listed. In spirit similar to WP:V, it's notability and verifiability. An assertion of notability should include sources, but trodding this off to AfD or gutting it as "unsourced" really doesn't sit with WP:N or WP:V. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody mentioned AfD. However, the letter of wp:v necessitates sources and its extension wp:indy further qualifies the nature of those sources. As this article stands, it potentially violates wp:nor. We could probably reference the old 1up article and I think there were a few that were taken down around the same time. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEB sounds like the start of a deletion rationale to me, since that's what notability guidelines are for. Regardless, what statements in this article are original research. Not having a nice number of sources does not indicate (necessarily) the presence of any non-verifiable information (ie original research). I see little that isn't unambiguous fact in this article, and find none of it dubious or original-research-y. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

CADRadio strikes me as particularly questionable. The events section, too, could use some external points of reference, but that should be simple. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

B^U

what does B^U mean? did someone erase this earlier? - 98.212.218.182 (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's vandalism.--Thrindel (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

aside from being mis-sense text, why does it keep appearing on this article ? - 98.212.218.182 (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Becaaaause... people keep trying to vandalize the article?--Thrindel (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of B^U is that it is the 'universal face' found in CAD. You'll find detractors on forums and EncyclopediaDramatica use it to refer to templating or buckleyboxing, which you mentioned above. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:V source?--Thrindel (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I know what you're implying, but I'm going to ask anyway what exactly I need a source for. I'm only explaining the recurrence of this glyph sequence to a new wikipedian in terms that, by nature, can not be proven under the terms of WP:V. They are epistemically inaccessible in that regard. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

All that I was "implying" is that if we're discussing this for inclusion in the article, do you have any WP:V sources for it. Because the explanation sounded a lot like WP:OR. And if we're not discussing it for the article's sake, does it really need to be discussed here at all? It was just a question DaoKaioshin.--Thrindel (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite honestly there are pictures of literally every character to appear in CAD for more than a single panel with the exact same face. I don't see why it wouldn't be completely reasonable to include it.75.178.69.3 (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I would suggest you read over some of the governing policies for Wikipedia article content, and I believe you'll find the myriad of reasons why it won't be included. In fact, you could probably find most or all of them on this very talk page. With over 6-7 years worth of comics in the archive there at 4 per week, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you could find a similar expression multiple times, especially considering the fairly simplistic art style of the comic. That's not exactly encyclopedic information.--Thrindel (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of bu^ was not suggested as it is vandalism. I discussed why vandals target this article with that tag and why it is not fit for inclusion. I did not try to make an assertion over the abundance or even rarity of this figure in the comic itself and couched my explanation in terms signifying its hearsay (and wikipedically inadmissible) nature. I apologize if my meaning was opaque. - 98.212.218.182 (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

High?

Why is this article high importance? A single webcomic is not " fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.". It looks to me like this should be Low at highest. Note Rob Liefeld's "Awesome Comics" (which is actually published and by a well-known artist) is a Low. 75.178.69.3 (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

why do you guys want this article to have a fan site warning at the top? if you care so much about it wouldnt you like it to be labeled as a real page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.101.164.220 (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a fan site, there are just concerns about the style of the page, none of which necessitates the personal attacks you've been making, nor any demotion of this page to anything lower than "real page." --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

im sorry i just have trouble believing anything that says fan site. its like the pages that say they are written from an in universe view. but you cant deny there is more anti-cad things out there than this page mentions. and while it may seem i hate cad i still read all the news ones. i just would really like for this page to stop being so very one sided. you probably wont see it that way because cad seems to be one of those things you cant argue with people much like religion and politics. 130.101.164.220 (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The tag says the article resembles a fan site, not that it is one. And that's because when the tag was added the article was bloated with unnecessary trivia, and filler, an extensive character bio section, and some phrasing that wasn't neutral enough. A very large portion of that has since been pruned in an attempt to bring the article down to basic, verifiable facts befitting an encyclopedia article. I don't see how the article is one-sided. There's no overwhelming praise represented in the article. In fact I think the article is a lot better and more neutral now than it was. If you see something in the article that you don't feel is neutral, post it in here for review.--Thrindel (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

see thats the problem. i understand lots of the criticisms cant be properly sourced...well i really don't because i havn't nor do i plan to read the wiki rules so i'm gonna take your word of it. but it exists and the fact that absolutely no mention of it is here does seem not entirely neutral to me. but once again thats my opinion.130.101.164.220 (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes that criticism exists, it's just not notable in any way. If there was some 'Webcomics Critic/Expert', the way that movies have critics (critics who have work published by third parties) and this webcomic critic did a review of ctrlaltdel, then that might be submittable. As far as I know, webcomics don't have critics and experts of this level because webcomics as a whole are not notable enough to warrant them the way movies do. The opinions of joe schmoes like you and me are not notable in an encyclopedic environment. The same way if I went to a forum and said "I hate New Jersey", they're not going to put a line in the NJ article that says "...and some people hate New Jersey." But if I was some sort of well known travel critic, with published books etc, and I wrote a book about how awful I thought New Jersey was... that might be noted in the wiki article on NJ, that a well known expert gave the city a bad review. Understand?--Thrindel (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

that does make sense but i would still think with that at least controversy could be mentioned. it is one of the most controversial webcomics ive heard of but i do see what you mean. none of the other webcomics ive wikid have a criticism section so i guess it is fair.130.101.164.220 (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yahtzee's a critic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.253.52 (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everyone's a critic, or so goes the saying. WP:UNDUE is still relevant. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest citation

Would the resource indicated here: http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20030711 be enough to validate the citation request about Ethan's descent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceWolf213 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't even be necessary. WP:V isn't an invitation to get {{fact}}-happy all over every article that doesn't cite, in-line, every single fact on the page. But I added it a while ago anyway. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete article?

This article has only one source not from the webcomic or a website associated with it. The subpages Ctrl+Alt+Del: The Animated Series, List of Ctrl+Alt+Del: The Animated Series episodes have no sources at all, and List of Ctrl+Alt+Del characters has only sources from the webcomic. Given this, why should this article (and its subarticles) not be deleted for not following the notability guidelines? (I wanted feedback so I would know if to list it for deletion or not.)--Jedravent (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a deletion listing as well. Go for it. --Vashir (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see with deletion is that eventually someone is just going to come along, see there is no article, and create one. And then we're basically starting from scratch, and probably worse off than we are now. I think it would be better to work to improve the article, rather than to delete it. Additionally, a lot of work has already been invested in this article.

There have been a number of sources over the course of the article that might point to notability, but they have been pruned over time in an attempt to trim fat from the article. I have done some research, looked at wikipedia articles on other webcomics for comparison, and I've added a few things to the article, with as many sources as I could find. In comparison to other webcomic articles which are not being suggested for deletion, I feel that these items show some notability. Two separate news articles [9][10] mention that Buckley makes a living from the comic, which also seems notable, though I haven't put it in the article until people have had time to review/discuss what I already added.

I have also found this video [11] which appears to be a clip from Mtv where CAD was mentioned from some Xfire event, but I am still looking for details and/or more sources on that.--Thrindel (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully when something is deleted it can still be undeleted, and deleted articles on comics are copied to comixpedia.org so they can be moved back here if necessary at a later date. But, I don't think deletion is necessary here because my library seems to be turning up at least a few good sources for this comic. --Dragonfiend (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a few sources and removed the tag requesting sources. --Dragonfiend (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Joystiq "Best Webcomic Of The Week"

Found at the bottom of the "Other Publishing" section, "Ctrl+Alt+Del has been voted best webcomic of the week by the readers of Joystiq seven times: December 27, 2005 [22], April 11, 2006 [23], May 16, 2006 [24], June 5, 2007 [25], August 7, 2007 [26], September 25, 2007 [27], January 8, 2008 [28]" - honestly, is this really necessary? Before reading the Wikipedia entry on Joystiq, I'd never even heard of the website before, so it can't be all that significant. And it's just that - a website. Including bit about it being voted "best webcomic of the week" seven times is of no encyclopedic import, due to the abusability of online polls, and this award has no recognized significance anywhere...and it's, again weekly. I don't believe this deserves any mention here, and smacks of the previous "fansite"-style controversy surrounding this article. And I'd be willing to bet that if I went back and looked at the revision history, Buckl - sorry, Thrindel, was the one who added that. Not that it really matters, I suppose, but my point stands - this has no significance, nor place, in this article. GoatDoomOcculta (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Accusing me of editing with personal interest goes against WP:AGF policy, and possibly a minor WP:BLP issue. As you are a new editor, I would ask that you review those policies and please refrain from directly attacking other editor's motives.

As for the content, I'd like to point out that just because you have not heard of something before, does not automatically make it insignificant. Joystiq is a fairly popular gaming website, and has been recognized by Forbes.com, according to their article.

Sources were hunted out by myself and other editors in response to this [12] discussion, directly above this one. I looked at a handful of Wiki articles for other popular webcomics for comparison to this article, to see how they were constructed. Some of them included mentions of their Joystiq awards, and not a single one had been disputed as an appropriate source, so I added it, among other things, to the article.

If other editors agree that it shouldn't be in the article, then we can certainly remove it. Though I would also expect to see it challenged on the articles of other webcomics as well.--Thrindel (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In regard to my alleged good faith "attack" on you, here is my copy/pasted response from my Talk page to you, because I'm not typing the same thing again - I am well aware of WP:AGF, but you should be aware that you cannot use WP:AGF as a be-all-end-all method of disregarding blatantly true observations about yourself while simultaneously maintaining what you see as the moral high ground. It's common knowledge that you are Buckley, and saying that you are should not be considered an "attack" on you, especially since your Thrindel persona seems to admire the man so much, with your obsessive guard-doggery of the CAD article and all things related to it. Seeing such an assertion as an "attack" on you does nothing but suggest that you are extremely defensive about such a thing, for reasons which have no logical foundation. From this, a logical conclusion can be drawn that you are indeed Buckley. Saying so is not an attack on you, it is simply an observation. If you are not him, then you should be flattered that I am "mistaking" you for your idol. I'd certainly be flattered if someone mistook me for Mika Luttinen or Jean Baudrillard, and I idolize the two of them.

Moving right along - an unofficial "award" (a weekly one, no less) given out by the alleged readership of a gaming website does not merit encyclopedic mention. Online polls, as previously stated, are remarkably easily abused, and a weekly "best webcomic award" is largely insignificant to virtually everything. Do you see GameFAQs Poll of the Day games that win votes (i.e. "Which May 2008 release are you most excited for?") or even the "Character Battle" results posted in Wikipedia articles? Do these awards have any relevance to anything at all, besides the representation of what is supposed to be the collective opinion of a gaming website? Of course not - and GameFAQs is exponentially larger and more popular than Joystiq. Mention of these awards in this article seems no different than, say, a college graduate proudly displaying scratch-and-sniff gold star stickers he got for good behavior in kindergarten, on his resume.

As for other webcomic articles where these weekly "awards" are mentioned, do link to them and I'll be sure to address the issue on their talk pages as well. Seeing how many years back the earliest "award" Joystiq gave to CAD goes, though, there would be hundreds of individual mentions of specific weeks in which X webcomic won the award for Y week, which I sincerely doubt is the case.

Case in point: These "awards" have no encyclopedic value to speak of and should be removed post-haste. GoatDoomOcculta (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

After a bit of research and looking at other webcomics that have won this "award"'s Wikipedia entries, I am unable to find even a single mention of such a thing. In the future, I suggest you take your own advice, "Thrindel", and don't make claims based solely on assumptions.

My point stands - mention of this irrelevant "award" from Joystiq is completely undeserving of encyclopedic mention. GoatDoomOcculta (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you look a little harder [13]. There's one I found just searching off the top of my head. And yes, you've made your point, you don't think it should be in the article. That's fine. We'll wait for other editors to weigh in and make a decision. It is not harming the article, it is certainly not unsourced, I see no reason it needs to be removed "post-haste".--Thrindel (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a seeming total of 10 mentions (based on "Joystiq webcomic week"; I'm really not going more in-depth than that) on Wiki, including this one and the above mentioned. It's not even close to being a valid source or even a notable reference, for any of them.

Also, people should not have to go to such great lengths in regards to these matters, but Buckley or not you have a definate history here of an adverse bias to edits such as this here. Granted, this is often through overly liberal quotings of WP:AGF and the like (and arguably in in unequal or biased) so as to be so deeply tangled as to not being worth the effort of argueing most of the time. At any rate, you bring your own good faith and standing of bias into question enough that it is hardly necessary to mention. The simple fact that I'm having to say this here is evidence enough of that. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My longstanding effort in keeping this article free of unsourced material and vandalism is not an open invitation to call my good faith into question without evidence nor attempt to WP:OUTING me with false information. I have no bias at all towards "edits such as this here", and I have no problem with this particular content being removed from the article. This and other sources were added in an attempt to counter a deletion suggestion. My problem here, was that GoatDoomOcculta was unable to keep the discussion focused on content, without attempting to discredit another editor with unfounded accusations.

I'm sorry you feel I deserve this treatment, for no other apparent reason than that I've dedicated a lot of my time trying to keep this article within the letter of policy.--Thrindel (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You can claim that your longstanding effort has been so, but your longstanding effect has been to strongly oppose any negative items, vandalism or no. The mentioning of the longstnding inquiries as to any (and the nature of) Thrindel/Buckley relation was unnecessary for that message, just as your immediately taking the matter for mention to administrators. Your actions and apparent motivations regarding this wiki entry tend to paint a very suspicious picture, one that if true would mean a much greater violation of Wikipedia's policies against POV and bias than it would mean a violation of WP:OUTING.

To turn the clock back a fair amount, if this entry was unable to bypass a nomination for deletion without including material such as that then it should have been deleted. My main concern is that you do not address all of your liberal policy quoting equally; you admit to including non-notable and non-reliable information on the basis of avoiding wiki deletion and then turn around and question the reliability of Ben Croshaw. Summed up, you show a deliberate intent to keeping strongest to the policies as it suits your need and take actions regarding the Wiki that serve to enhance the appearance of the comic while keeping accurace and neutral POV to the side.

There is no "this treatment" here, barring the mildly innapropriate initial comment. I am not conducting a personal attack here, I am addressing a history of intentional or unintentional actions that leave you appearing biased and disgenuine as to your motivations. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

At no point did I admit to purposefully including non-notable information. As I've said multiple times already, I looked at other webcomic articles to see what kind of information they included, and upon seeing that particular bit of information listed as a "notable", opted to include it here as well, since some editors were asking for more notability in the article. I added it, and if other editors find it is not necessary to the article, that's perfectly fine. Nor is it the one piece of information that the article's deletion hinged upon. Furthermore, I am not the only editor that spoke as to the reliability of Ben Croshaw, and I am the only one who has spoken against all of the other unsourced and libelous information numerous different first-time editors continue to inject here.

There is no history of tailoring this article to my own means. You will find no edits from me wherein I attempt to add overt praise or unsourced fancruft to the article, nor have I removed any properly sourced criticisms. In fact, on numerous occasions I have supported the paring down of the article to base, neutral fact. On numerous other occasions I have also stated that I have no problem with negative criticism being added to the article, should it be properly sourced. However I have done quite a fair amount of research into every accusation presented, and have found not the slightest shred of evidence to support any of them. And my editing history on this article would be far less extensive were it not necessary to remove these same violations dozens of times over.

If you truly feel you have a case, take it to WP:COIN and it can be decided there. Otherwise I don't feel you, or anyone else, has a right to call into question my good faith without providing some actual evidence of a conflict of interest, and I will say so if I'm attacked without reason. And yes, accusing someone of bad faith without evidence is considered a personal attack and, in itself, assuming bad faith.--Thrindel (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Pity there's no WP:WHINE or anything I can throw here - honestly, a complaint to the admins because I called you Tim Buckley, a man you seem to worship? Christ.

Regardless, it's good to see that the worthless information has finally been removed. Seeing as that takes away the vast majority of the references this article has that are not links to Buckley's own website, does anyone else feel that a deletion is in order? I'm new to the whole Wiki thing, so I don't know how to go about initializing that, but I do know that with the Joystiq references gone, CAD is no longer "notable", or whatever the word would be. Let's remove this eyesore and drama-filled talk page from the encyclopedia at last, shall we? GoatDoomOcculta (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There are still more than a few reliable, third party sources listed to contribute to the article. A single mention does not determine the notability of an entire article. Why would your first inclination be deletion of the article, rather than improvement of whatever area you feel is lacking? What about this article makes it an "eyesore"? How do you feel the article could be improved?--Thrindel (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A criticisms section would certainly improve the article. It seems awfully strange that a comic so frequently and publicly criticized has absolutely no mentions of such things in its article.ShiftingRealities (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed

One of the growing issues with this Wiki stems from the fact that it really does have a questionable notability outside of its fan base and/or the people that have been aware of its history. The problem is that these people, essentially the only people that are concerned with it, are by and large considered unsourceable. This normally would not be a problem, except in this specific case there is a growing amount of information ranging from the wild to the mild that is left out of the entry as "unsourceable" due to the fact that nearly no one pays attention to the comic to start.

Of the references for this Wiki, only numbers 3, 7, and 12 are a source that is not produced by Buckley or involving an advertisement comic he was hired to make. #3 is not listed or mentioned in the newspaper's online archives, nor are there any results even for "webcomic". So that source is only available as a three-year-old newspaper clipping from "the daily newspaper of Manchester."

Edit: On a closer look in-text, #3 is cited to the college campus "Around Campus for the Week of Oct. 16, 2006", though it is cited below for the newspaper. There is no specific mention other than a simple oratory presense of Buckley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Human.v2.0 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Number 7 is likewise a local Lincoln, Nebraska, paper with a daily circulation of just over 70,000. It also does not contain an archived version of this article. Wikipedia is actually the only Google result for a search of the listed article title. Twelve is a mention in a minor computing website. This entire mention is only includable since the comic entry as a whole exists; as a LAN/Convention it is of minor importance compared to others.

So of the three neutral references, only one is verifiable. The other two just as well might not exist, as there is no seeming way short of a newspaper clipping from two different local papers. When compared to the large amount of material that is considered unsourceable, I'm finding a greater and greater issue with this Wiki. The thing is that I agree that it is unsourceable. There are not at this time sources that meet Wiki guidelines. There is however a difference between unsourceable by Wiki and not being mentioned, discussed, or talked about by the already demonstrated only people that pay any attention to this comic.

At this point I would include the {{subst:prod}} tag, but since I gather that method was the one used previously used and it is not available again at the moment. That is, however, pretty much exactly what I am proposing now. Due to the nature of this article; the lack of references existing for material both included and not, the unverifiable nature of these references, and the publicly non-notable nature of the comic that is even frequently referenced by those who require more specific sources for other information (notably a Criticism section); it is increasingly indicated as being incomplete, biased, or deception through omission (depending on how strongly one feels on the matter). I believe that it should either be trimmed down to a proper size based on the available neutral material or deleted entirely.

--Human.v2.0 (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to preface this by saying that if you really feel this article will pass deletion (and really feel it needs to be deleted), then by all means, list it for such. It's not something I'll support personally, as I feel it's a little drastic, however if some neutral administrators look at the article and decide it should be deleted, I have no problem with that.

I do also want to say that I think some sort of similar standards should be applied to all webcomic articles. I guess my case in point would be that the "Joystiq Awards" references were deemed non-notable, and removed (which is fine), but are apparently still okay for the Dueling Analogs article?

While this article does contain quite a few sources from the website itself (although still not nearly as many as the VGCats article, which is nearly 90% so), the WP:SELFPUB states that self-published sources may be used in articles about themselves (which would be the case here, using the website as a source for the article about the website) so long as they meet a list of requirements.

Most of the requirements are a non-issue with the sources in this article. They don't refer to third parties, there is no reasonable doubt as to the author, etc. The biggest question mark about them as I see it would be whether or they are relevant to the notability of the article. Now obviously some of these are strictly information-based sources, such as "Ethan is of Irish Descent". That's proving information in the article more than it is trying to say that that particular tidbit of info is notable.

Some of the other references, though, are (I believe) speaking to notability, or combined with other third party sources (such as the lecture mention on the school website, plus Buckley's newspost on the topic) to build a better overall picture of a particular note.

My argument would be that, were the comic not notable or cared about in any sense at all, as you are suggesting, I can't see its author being asked to speak at a college, or being interviewed by CBSNews.com, or hired by a video game company to do promotional comic work for a game. It wouldn't be so much that those Civilization comics themselves are notable, but more that CtrlAltDel and its creator are notable enough that, when the game developer goes looking for webcomics to hire, of the possibly millions of webcomics that are online, CtrlAltDel is one of those they approached. And I don't think that would be the case, (the hiring, the lecture, the CBS interview, etc) were the comic not notable and known outside of its direct fanbase.

When this article was bloated and full of references from all over the place (the 1up.com article mention, interviews, etc) it was too big and fansite-ish. Now that it's been pruned back, it doesn't have enough sources. I fully agree that this article should be trim, and doesn't require all of the bloat it had months ago (the episode recaps, lengthy character bios, etc). But I think there's plenty there for the article to pass a notability test, especially compared to some other webcomic articles that remain untouched.

Just my $0.02.--Thrindel (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, saying that it is okay to have problems in this article because other, similar articles have those problems is a fallacy. It does not matter how many inappropriate sources, lack of notability, etc. the pages for these comics have, as the Wikipedia guidelines are absolute, not relative or comparative.

In regards to the lack of appropriate sources (those not created by Tim Buckley himself), Human's argument is valid, there are simply too few, after all this time, for the article to avoid being put up for deletion. Your argument that the article should remain because its creator has spoken at a college seeks to confuse the issue in two ways. First, speaking at a college does not make one worthy of an article, many business managers are invited to give lectures at world-renowned universities, yet this does not make Wikipedia articles on the relevant. Furthermore, Tim Buckley speaking at a college does not mean that a comic drawn by Tim Buckley is notable. These are two separate issues and that argument would be suited to the talk page of a Tim Buckley article, if there was one, and not this article.

There are simply too few, if any, reliable, valid sources which can establish the notability needed to keep this page. Since this debate has been going for an inordinate amount of time with little to no progress, this article should be put up for deletion. Every Dog's Day (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

An AfD would fail again and just waste even more time. JuJube (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the first one to propose deletion, but now that I see all these sources I have changed my mind. --Jedravent (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)