Talk:Cory Williams

message: Ahh, previous version of this aritcle removed with Williams' mail, why did you started again? OnurTcontribs 22:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the same thing.  I think he's notable enough, but his article was a HUGE spam magnet before the admins deleted it.  Ichormosquito 01:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think he would be notable enough with 129,601 YouTube subscribers. 12.152.160.239 (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Again?

message: posted on youtube.com
------------------
"....My Wiki is back!
I emailed Wikipedia back and allowed them to post my article back up. The majority of the information is wrong anyway...."
-Cory (Reply)   (Delete)   (Block User)   (Mark as Spam)
--------------------------
This article clearly lacks notability and has various issues that need to be addressed now Apelike 02:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOS 

message: I recently tried to create a wikipedia profile for Philip DeFranco also known as "sxephil" and someone deleted it within the first ten minutes of posting.  I wasn't even done adding all the links and information.  Philip has a lot more subscribers and views than Cory does, so why doesn't he get his own page?  Can some one help me please.  Philip is notable in more ways that one.  He has been on several main stream television shows, he has a large viewer base, and he's just a good guy who really deserves this.  I take this personally because I am a fan of his work.  Well Not the crazy "buy his dirty underwear" kind.  I'm more of the "appreciative fan of his comedy" kind.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by UncleBobby629 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look over WP:NOTE and WP:BIO.  Administrators will usually delete articles on sight if they don't see reliable sources.  Ichormosquito 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: basically if Ichormosquito says this YouTuber is notable, then they're notable. Apelike (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Williams is somewhat more notable outside the internet, which gives more purpose to having this article. Leo-Roy! review/gb 18:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What makes a YouTube person notable? 

message: We need references and citations BADLY. Relying completely on YouTube as reference violates Wikipedia guidelines, and this issue must be fixed. I'll be looking around the internet, anybody is welcome to help. Leo-Roy! review/gb 18:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Refs 

message: Shouldn't we put a little more info about Sparta and Loki?Alpha`s Arceus:Are You Siding with the Humans?! 15:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cory's Cats 

message: The current image used on this article is a copyright violation unloader claims it was given to him by author but provides no proof image will be tagged as such by me or another user. Kyle1278 04:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Image Problem

message: I have removed a large section in the YouTube part of the article it was mostly unreferenced and original research, and please note the YouTube dose not pass Wikipedia:RS. Kyle1278 16:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP Issues  

message: On the MTV show Pranked, a video of Cory Williams was featured that showed him pranking a friend licking a dried kangaroo anus (or something like that) that had vegemite on it.  I've searched and found nothing to reference this. Any help would be appreciated.  Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured on "Pranked" 

message: Do not remove content you don't like. Just because a primary source a reliable source used for their information is no longer available, it does not make their content any less reliable.--JacktheHarry (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, actually. Anyone can say that something happened, but if they can't document what exactly happened then it's not a verified source. Do not accuse me of removing things I do not agree with, that was rude and unprofessional. I have double checked, the linked source on that blog page says it doesn't exist, so how can it be proven if it doesn't exist? Use a different source or bring in an administrator. Or if you would like to accuse me of anything else, I'll go get one-A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 17:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Go get an admin then, you'll find reliable sources are still reliable even if they link to defunct websites. By your logic, we should delete all the articles in :Category:Lost films as unreliable because they aren't available anymore. Read WP:LINKROT.--JacktheHarry (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to read WP:V.  If you can't verify the information by the source or by an archive of the source, and that information is contentious, you remove it until such time that it can be verified.  That is one of the core principles here, one of the Pillars, number 2 in fact.  We will not simply take your word for it that the source existed at one time.  Even Jimbo himself has clearly said it is better to have an incomplete article rather than one with questionable content.  This is especially true when dealing with biographical articles. I would also note that this "reliable source" is using the words "twat" and "shit" a great deal in their broken code, which makes me seriously question their reliability to begin with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the source I'm using.. but I would be interested in reading the wikipedia policy page where we are required to do our own original research in checking the sources of a reliable source. Can you link me to it?--JacktheHarry (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the whole point, it's about verification, not just reliability.  If you are sure if a source is reliable, you can go to WP:RSN.  Most of us that have been selected to be admin, have 8 years of experience, have 50k edits, and have created dozens of articles, including a few GAs and FAs are familiar enough that we seldom get it wrong. Of course, you can take it to RSN if you disagree.  In a nutshell, policy says that if something is contentious, it must be cited by a source that clearly passes the expectations of WP:RS, otherwise, it must be removed.  You can keep looking around and add it back once you find a reliable source (assuming it doesn't fall short of WP:UNDUE or one of the dozens of other rules we have on content) but not until then.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

text: That's nice, but I'm only using the reliable (and live) source Gigaom.--JacktheHarry (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see one discussion saying it isn't a reliable source in the archives, and I see two people saying it is in another discussion, so no consensus exists.  Because it is a blog (defunct or not), and it is not tied to a major news source, the default position has always been to consider it not reliable without clear evidence of editorial oversight, so no, it wouldn't be adequate by itself to prove a contentious claim in a biography.  We can keep beating around this, but that is just how it is.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and no one is going to call that an adequate source for that claim.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was unreliable, somehow I don't think it would get into 1500 pages. Besides the claim isn't 'extraordinary', it's known views have been inflated on the site, and their source is subject admitted it themselves. The source is simply repeating what the subject said themselves. Far from 'extraordinary'.--JacktheHarry (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argumentum ad populum doesn't make it RS. Blogs aren't RS except for certain circumstances and this is not one of them. Jim1138 (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  View count inflation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cory Williams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070824074439/http://www.boston.com:80/business/technology/articles/2007/08/22/youtube_vloggers_congregate_offline/ to http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/08/22/youtube_vloggers_congregate_offline/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Would it be more appropriate for Cory's infobox to be upgraded to the Youtube personality one? I was looking around at Toby Turner and Olga Kay and noticed they have one and Cory doesn't.
Your thoughts? --A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 16:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of infobox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cory Williams. 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://web.archive.org/web/20120209082007/http://www.thefizz.tv/ to http://www.thefizz.tv/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-6160390.html
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) 11:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified