Talk:DontDateHimGirl.com

message: I'm removing the tag. The article has been cleaned up, there is no POV in the article and it is properly sourced. Also, those involved in this dispute should read WP:COI before editing this article again. This includes tagging the article. Wikipedia is not a battleground and those involved in this dispute should recuse themselves from editing it or contact our OTRS department who will edit the article for you. EconomicsGuy 11:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "No stranger to giving back, Cunningham has been honored". This to me seems to be more or less biased in favor of Cunningham. Also some of the phrasing of the lawsuit outcome just seems to be subtly favoring DDHG. I mean: a dismissal based on jurisdiction is made into a victory of some kind. One might expect future lawsuits. Also the positive tone about how much "Tasha" seems to care about women to me heavily contrasts with the loose way the site seems to be run as judged from this article. I'm reinstating NPOV.--130.89.166.237 07:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This comes across as written by DDHG's PR team or something. Definitely not neutral...it's written more in the tone of Oprah than an encyclopedia 203.58.120.11 (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a terrible article, way out of whack.  I've removed some of the worst of the advertising fluff, trivia, unencylopedic material, resume prose, and so on.  There's not a whole lot of real information there, and almost entirely uncited, so there is very little to work with.  What I've left in still would not cut it in most articles.  For an example of what a web 2.0 site can and ought to look like, see Yelp.com, Hotornot, LinkedIn, iVillage, etc.  These aren't great articles but at least they're in the ballpark.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article at tmc.net asserts that DontDateHimGIrl.com has been covered in the New York Times, the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and other publications. If someone has the patience to look all these up, the citations might be added to the article. While the rejection of the first lawsuit, if it *was* only jurisdictional, may not be notable enough to deserve having us cite the primary court documents, the press coverage of that decision might be notable. The fact that EFF, ACLU and others bothered to file amicus briefs suggests that these organizations felt it was an important case. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: The article has had a recent spell of edit-warring that began on Sept. 11. Two IP editors, possibly with some relation to the parties, have been strongly inserting POV on one side or the other. If you believe the article contains errors, please make the case for a change here on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected 

message: IP editor, 76.108.196.241, is resiting attempts to maintain the accurate language regarding the lawsuit used by EdJohnston in September 2008. Moderating editor assistance with this would be appreciated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Integrity 

message: There seems to be an editing war going on here. The reference used to claim that the second lawsuit was dismissed after an "agreement" with the plaintiff does not exist. There is no information to support this assertion. Everything else in the article is referenced. It appears that the second lawsuit was dismissed by a judge in Florida. There is nothing that says there was an "agreement". This reference has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorialReviewWiki (talk • contribs) 18:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing war

message: I removed this because it is just wordily describing what the site does. The reference to the site's terms of use fell just the wrong side of Original Research for me (because of the "however" part), so I cut it. The content wasn't particularly easy to parse and seemed a little bit like a promotional description (words like "offered" put me of). Perhaps the following would work:
Thoughts? --Errant (chat!) 15:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site description 

message: Claims about this site seem to be mostly speculative - apart from the NYT there is little reliable sourcing that mentions it. Her blog is a bad source for this, because any manner of claims could be made, none of which are recorded reliably.
It's a vapourware site, that got little coverage and never launched. So I am not sure it is of significance - perhaps we can source it as a sentence? --Errant (chat!) 15:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that every one of those merely states that "there's a plan in the works", a plan which we now know was never fulfilled, I think we should stick with a single sentence.  How about, "Joseph stated in 2006 that she was planning to start a similar site for men titled "DontDateHerMan.com",(NYT ref), but later announced on her blog in 2007 that she would not do so.(blog ref)"  I think her blog is reliable for the statement that the site won't be opened, but not reliable for the reasons it wasn't opened.  Would this be a reasonable compromise?  `Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

text: * As a point of clarification, she apparently announced DontDateHerMan on December 21, 2005: "The staff of DDHG is now preparing to launch DontDateHerMan.com, the companion site to this one that focuses on cheating women. The site is set to launch on Valentine’s Day 2006! We’ll keep you posted as we continue to develop the site."  It didn't launch in February, but was being promoted in the press as launching in April. In June 2006, she wrote that she wasn't going launch the site after all: "Also, we’ve decided not to launch DontDateHerMan.com after getting a flurry of e-mails from women denouncing my intention to create a site for men to post the pictures and profiles of women who have cheated on them." However, one news report from April 2007, (see Contra Costa Times, above) said the reason was due to "male focus groups." It reported that a different spin-off, "GreatGuysToDate.com" was supposed to be launched in its place by June 1, 2007, which was likewise a no-go.--HidariMigi (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  DontDateHerMan.com 

message: The reverting by Jb782 is removing cited content, and adding a citation needed template when the information that resolves that is being removed is being reverted by the editor.  Please discuss the reason for reverting the information before reverting again, because there was no edit summary used, so the reasoning is not clear.  However, considering the amount of content removed, I think a talk page discussion is required, not a simple edit summary.  Thank you. - SudoGhost 22:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The information HidariMigi added was sourced, and you're removing their sourced edit with unsourced information.  This is not an appropriate edit, if you update the information, it has to be with a source to reflect the change, per WP:V.  Reverting that entire edit for that one thing is also not appropriate.  This is why your changes were reverted, as there was no valid reason for reverting the edit. - SudoGhost 22:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

text: This does not verify the information you inserted into the article. - SudoGhost 23:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And adamsmedia sure does not look like a reliable source to me; removed w/sentence. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

text: No, I did not do it.  There's no way I'm going to check 102 pages to find some verification that might not even be there.  If a source verifies information, you should directly link where the information is supported, not linking another page where readers will have to go searching for the information (they will have no idea where to look).  For future reference, the best way to verify such information is to provide the actual source, and note the page number, so that other editors do not have to spend time searching for something a page number could easily solve.  There's no such thing as too specific in that regard, quite the opposite, the more specific the better.  According to WP:BURDEN, You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it.  That's all that happened.  However, maybe it was just me, but the link given in the source shows a 404 error, but removing the "1" at the end fixes that issue, so I removed the 1 at the end, so that the link worked correctly. - SudoGhost 17:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'm removing the citation from the line about the TV show. How could a court brief filed in 2006 and settled in 2008 possibly provide any verification for a TV show supposedly optioned in 2009?  Did someone just link the wrong ref name? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on DontDateHimGirl.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120730190650/http://www.dontdatehimgirl.com/posts/63/ to http://www.dontdatehimgirl.com/posts/63/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified