Talk:D. C. Douglas

message: This entry to wikipedia was created by me, the subject.  Yes, the language I used was based on a biography my manager had written and I neglected to neutralize some of the language.  That has since been rectified.  The rest of the entries on this talk page you're about to read stem from a silly controversy back in April 2010.  You can get a snapshot of the silliness via TeaPartyPSA.com.  So, now you know who I am.  Unfortunately, most of these other entries remain anonymous - other than the fact that many of the IPs come from an Arizona school.  I'll let your demographics/reasoning machine surmise the rest. Enjoy! 76.173.226.47 (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How It All Began 

message: Most of this article reads like a PR fluff piece. Perhaps now that he's gotten his noteriety for his mean spirited and insulting voice message some critical analysis of this article can be done. Dwain (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably because DC Douglas took part in the editing of his WP:BLP early on, and has probably continued it under various socks/IP's. MookieG (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've issued a conflict of interest warning on DC's talk page. I may do the same for any and all IP addresses he has used. Hopefully, we can get this issue taken care of and continue to improve this BLP. MookieG (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reading this as a walk down memory lane and decided to click on Mookie's name - only to find that the guy suggesting I was using sock accounts was, in fact, using sock accounts...  Oh, the irony. 76.173.226.47 (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I have tagged it for reading like a resume. I assume the guy is notable for his work (the controversy would be WP:BLP1E I think) but sources are needed to verify all of the work mentioned. Some of the language should be toned down (his unsourced "comedic versatility" and "prolific" work). It is interesting seeing an autobiography turn into a controversy page but that should be easy enough t fix.Cptnono (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PR 

message: The apparent subject of the article keeps editing the article. Is this still frowned upon? I noticed he removed sourced information as well as some no so flattering news that has been widely reported. Shouldn't he refrain from this? Nobody wants to harm the subject's reputation, but the information this editor is removing has been widely reported in the national news. I suggest that the subject speak to an Admin instead of editing out sourced info. Thanks. Dwain (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent Subject Editing Article 

message: Due to recent edit warring this page has been protected for a week. Please use the time to come to a consensus here on what should and shouldn't be included, and request unprotection if agreed before the end of that time. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering why you gave this article full protection, without first trying semi-protection. Most of the disruption I've observed was vandalism by anonymous IP editors. DC Douglas was is the only editor disputing content, semi-protection would've at least forced him to sign on before editing. Either way, it didn't seem to warrant full protection, especially when it wasn't first requested on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and prior to semi-protection. Perhaps you should reconsider the decision to lock this article down. MookieG (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Wow. You are a real piece of work. Elsewhere I noticed that you are asking people to get me to "back off," you mistakenly assert that the "Tea Party folks" lost you a lucrative contract. I'm glad to see that you are stepping up to the plate and taking responsibilty for your own actions! I'm being saracastic here. Not Tea Partiers, nor Mookie, nor myself, nor anyone else caused you to lose anything. You did. I don't condone the vandalizing of your article and I noticed, after the fact, that on a couple of my reverts some nasty things were still on the page. It wasn't deliberate. You seem to be giving the impression that you are some kind of victim in this whole affair. I don't see it that way. You precipitated everything by leaving the snide and hateful message under an assumed name. If you didn't want any confusion with your name maybe you shouldn't go around using assumed ones. Peace. Dwain (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say that you did not use the phrase "mentally retarded," why is it listed on YOUR site as a mistake to say? I call attention to this: http://www.myvoiceoverguy.com/voice-over/freedomworks-geico-tortious-interference/ and quote you here - "Unfortunately, in my haste, I used the phrase “mentally retarded” which, ultimately, drags me down to their level." Which are we supposed to believe? That you said it, admitted it was wrong, or that you didn't say it and that it's a "conflation" from the guy at Freedomworks? I choose no side, just want the truth. The article should have the truth in it, and in all fairness, you shouldn't be editing your own article. If you have a conflict with the information, you should take it up with Wikipedia's admins. You have a vested interest in seeing the article as a positive, whereas it should be based on facts. I originally edited the article stating that you were terminated. I quoted your page, your press release, and your information. I made no judgments, simply put the information in. This, obviously, was changed post my editing to something else entirely, but my edit was based on facts, not conjecture or "conflation." 68.230.117.57 (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have never denied using that phrase.  I deny using the phrase "retarded killers" as I didn't call anybody that. I asked two calm, questions. That is a conflation by Matt Kibbe to stir up emotions in his followers and , apparently, you and the other editors determined to put in half-truths.  But, see, what I said is not the controversy -- the controversy was GEICO replacing a voice actor who made a call as a private citizen.  A private citizen, mind you, who doesn't blame GEICO for letting him go.  A private citizen who actually STOOD UP to FreedomWorks as opposed to hiding.  Let me ask you (name hidden/only ip address guy):  Did your edit mention that the only reason you or anyone else heard about it was because of my press release?  And the actual reason I put out a press release letting everyone know about it?  And that FreedomWorks posted my phone number and encouraged people to call me and GEICO?  And that they only targeted me because of my association with GEICO - a company on their blacklist due to pulling ads from Glenn Beck because of his racist comments?  The news story (which is now all but dead after 3 days) is much more than using the phrase "mentally retarded" (which is a perfectly acceptable, clinical term) and getting dropped from a campaign.  Additionally, did your entry mention the backlash from progressives on HuffingtonPost who encouraged others to drop GEICO for firing me?  Or that I had to issue another press release and ask them not to do that as I had "no grudge" against GEICO?  Or that I went on Geraldo At Large and said as much?  And that I also used the controversy to point out the GOP/Corporate money that was funding the "supposed" grass roots organization?  Or that I pointed out that the "real" Tea Party of Ron Paul supporters was drowned out by the racist, homophobes that FreedomWorks willingly attracted to the movement through their support of the Birther movement and the Town Hall disruption handbooks they sent out?  See, when you have your page on wiki and you find people throwing up one sentence that doesn't tell the whole story and could potentially get more people to send death threats, etc, you would probably want to do a little editing as well.  Do you want me to receive more death threats?  Because I'm getting tired of them. Misterdc 18:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to pick up on one phrase from the above comment: "The news story (which is now all but dead after 3 days)." Not only are the aforementioned issues of accuracy/neutrality/presenting the whole story in play, but we also need to consider whether it adds an unwarranted dose of recentism to the article. The current version of the article omits it entirely, and I agree with the omission. I don't see any pressing need to mention the situation right now. If it needs to be mentioned, we can certainly wait a few years and see what the historical perspective is (and hopefully one written with more objectivity, completeness, and circumspection). That perspective may be that the event is overlooked entirely, but I don't want to try to look in a crystal ball and say otherwise right now. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, my entry was very fact based, and simply stated you had been terminated for leaving a voicemail that was inflammatory, posted online, and actually included references to your press release so that people could read your side. I also said that you had apologized, quoted where you said that it was not acceptable, and left it at that. I placed no opinion in, nor did I discuss the tea party people. This affected you, was based on something you did, and merits being the article on that and that alone. Again - no opinion on it, just thought that the facts should be there. For the record, I am very neutral when I edit any articles. My opinion on something doesn't enter into the facts, which is just as it should be. I cannot help when others go in and edit further than I did, but I edited it weeks ago. The day you were terminated, I edited the article. I'm certain that is more than 3 days ago. If you want my opinion, I will certainly give it to you - I think Freedomworks had every right to share your information. You are considered a public figure whether you did it as a private citizen or not, and you elected to leave the information when you contacted a public entity. Once you do so, you give whomever the right to publish it. If you had left it for someone else by mistake, they would not have that right. Do I think they targeted you because of your affiliation with GEICO? I have no idea. They very well might have, but I don't know what their "black list" consists of, nor am I inclined to look into it. Why? Because I think Glenn Beck is not worth spending even one iota of time on. I did see your press release with regard to GEICO, and you did a good job of saving face, which is a polite way of saying you covered your butt. They did what almost any company would do, and holding a grudge makes no sense - especially since it would also put you in a bad light with other potential employers. Do I disagree with it? No. You did what you had to do since people will associate your voice with their company, and you obviously want to keep working. Don't blame you there. Do I think what you did was foolish? Yes, it was. You put yourself at risk, and that's something I simply cannot advocate. I'm all for having a standard and believing what you want to believe, but you can keep it to yourself if it's going to put you at risk. You weren't working for Freedomworks, so it's not as though you were compromising yourself by keeping your opinion to yourself. 204.17.31.126 (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never asked for your opinion, so I will not read further.76.173.226.200 (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Never asked for my opinion, just wanted to cover your talking points, right? Wanted to make sure that everyone knew the huge effort you went to in order to show your better side and cover your ass, right? I volunteered my opinion so that you could see that my edit wasn't done with my opinion leading the way. Does it mean you're any less of the pompous ass that you're making yourself out to be with your continued diatribes and begging for your page to be edited or deleted? Nope, not at all. I'm willing to venture that you will continue reading and probably respond to this. It will get at you until you reply, it's simply in your nature. Why? Because you're simple in nature. You cannot leave well enough alone, which is why you got caught with your mouth running. Perhaps you should simply stick with the scripts that are given to you and keep your trap shut otherwise. By the way, nice of you to be the hidden/IP only guy. This way you can blame it on someone else, right? 204.17.31.126 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:   Wow.  Really?  I now am stepping back and looking at all the entries here on this prestigious wikipedia discussion page and can now truly write, with my whole heart, that you people need to go obsess on Janeane Garofalo's page.  That is, in between your classes and homework.  Too freakin' funny.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterdc (talk • contribs) 23:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

text: To D.C., you might find more people sympathetic to your situation if you would just take responsibility for your actions instead of blaming everyone else and their mothers. Playing the victim and whining about your plight reinforces the negative stereotypes placed upon us by neo-cons. PartyJoe (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, PartyJoe?  That's what I'm doing?  Well, I could post your name and number along with that sentence, find out who you work for and then post their number as well.  Encourage my 3000 Facebook fans to call up your employer and get you fired.  And when you are fired, whose fault will it be?  Seriously, PartyJoe, read more about a situation before you lecture someone you don't even know from Adam.  To the point:  I was not looking for sympathy.  I was looking for reason and critical thinking in the wiki community regarding people defacing the page.  As for the events outside of that, this is not the place for you or I to debate my personal life and motivations.  However, feel free to visit my blog and educate yourself as to what I have complained about and owned up to.  If you're getting that info anywhere else, you have no idea about who I am (and, btw, I do not subscribe to an "us and them" mentality... unless you'd like to pay my mortgage - then I'll take your side). Misterdc 10:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No really, would you like some cheese with that whine? Grow a set and quit your bitching! PartyJoe (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I will grow a pair, and then I'll dangle them on your forehead.76.173.226.200 (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But, but, but, I thought you were against teabagging. Now I'm confused. PartyJoe (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Success.Misterdc 21:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

text: The issue is that any recounting of events must be based on how they were reported in reliable sources, and usually just independent reliable sources. I think that's why citing a press release raised a red flag, because it gave the appearance that the article was trying to be significantly spun. And while it may be a systemic flaw of Wikipedia, articles aren't obliged to necessarily report the Truth but the most verifiable account of the events. When wholesale edits are made of an article with an edit summary of "Here is a factual account of the events. I will delete any and all edits that misinform or use opinion," that sets off huge alarm bells. At that point, it's best to discuss the edits on the talk page and get consensus for what should be included in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear ya.  The issue is that the "reliable sources" all took their information from semi-erroneously reported blogs and articles.  My comment about deleting was me fed-up with those editors who just want to put one aide of the dispute in the page.  I have gone into this in more depth on my Talk page (I think).  I am very confused by where and how to respond to this mess, so bear with me.  But I believe the upshot is that this flash in the pan event, started by my press release then distorted through a internet version of the "telephone" game shouldn't be included on the page.  Especially if just citing bloggers with agendas or badly sourced cable news is the only "acceptable" form of citing.  Sadly, no one cared about this page before and no one will care in 3 months, so I still need to come back here and make sure there is no libel going on.  Personally, I'd rather the page be deleted, but I know that's almost impossible to accomplish.  I thank you for the explanation, though. I was getting worried that I wouldn't come across rational folks. Glad you chimed in.Misterdc 18:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I've forwarded your request for article deletion. PartyJoe (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a couple lines under "Voiceover" (which should be a subsection of "Career" and not "Recent Years") should be sufficient and inline with WP:RECENTISM. "Dude was doing wok for GEICO. He was cut after a controversy where he did blah blah blah." Cptnono (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't take much to treat this like any other article. PartyJoe (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I take offense to the statement that the "reliable sources" all took their information from semi-erronesouly reported blogs and articles. My edit was based entirely on fact. I cited references to articles online, including your press release. It was fair and it was true. I don't edit randomly, and for you to insinuate that every edit that was done on this page was malicious is, in fact, libelous to those of us who made edits based on the facts. As I stated before, I keep my opinions out of edits. Talk pages are another story, but that's what they're for. Hmmm...wonder if you stopped reading yet??204.17.31.126 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: This text appears in the article, supported by the following link:
::Douglas was born in Berkeley, California. His father was a salesman and his mother was an artist.
An IP editor claims that the contact page supports the information. However, I see no mention of Douglas on that contact page whatsoever. Is there a source to support the claims that 1) that is Douglas' mother, 2) his father was a salesman, and 3) he was born in Berkeley? Based on how it's referenced now, those two sentences should be removed from the article as unverified. —C.Fred (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family background 

message: Please edit the article to make the word Teppen link to Teppen. JyuHachiJyu (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teppen link 

message: Change this:
:
to this:
:
 108.56.139.120 (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done  Terasail[✉️] 14:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2021 

message: Change this:https://comicbook.com/anime/2019/09/26/one-piece-stampede-english-dub-cast/
:https://comicbook.com/anime/2019/09/26/one-piece-stampede-english-dub-cast/
to this:
:
 108.56.139.120 (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done  Terasail[✉️] 14:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2021 

message: User_talk:BriefEdits (I think this pings you). Obviously you care much about this page and that's great! But your determination that a film garnering cult status through Mystery Theatre 3000 confounds me. My first film gets the MST3000 treatment 30 years later? I think that's an interesting fact to have listed. You do not?
Also, I find it interesting that you dug up the Aflac thing. My sense is that you have political leanings here but I want to believe you truly find it simply fascinating and must include. That being so, surely you also can see why a history of political videos would also be of note, thus, my re-inclusion of Breaking News Trump Cartoons. DCDouglas 09:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  BriefEdits, let's chat 

message: I have just added  to the page. It is apparent that it has been known for at least 12 years that the subject, User:Misterdc, has been making regular edits to the article. Sooner or later that must stop, perhaps by blocking him from editing. .     Jim .  . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi User_talk:Jameslwoodward, why? I am usually the one to fix vandalism from politically motivated trolls as well as erroneous credits attributed to me. The language of this article is neutral. The page was originally added by me over 15 years ago. When it was pointed out that the language was not neutral I, as well as a few others, changed it to comply with the warning. That warning was removed. This one was added due to image upload ownership dispute you came across and is not accurate to be applied here. I am requesting removal of your COI. ~~ DCDouglas 04:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Photographer sent in email. He was annoyed he had to do this since everyone in the industry understands how actor headshots work. DCDouglas 05:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: D.C Douglas also voices the Bedlam Raiders in Star Wars: Jedi survivor Cocaine owlbear (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2023 

message: Against the rules, re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_Your_Own_Page.
Furthermore, wound up here because I'd heard of controversies and accusations involving the actor and I wanted an unbiased, neutral source and was surprised to see absolutely nothing about it. Now, maybe they're completely unsubstantiated and not worthy of inclusion. But of course, since the actor himself is apparently constantly in the edit history, how can anyone trust that this is the case? And if there WAS something to them, he could use his access to completely mislead people --who aren't looking too closely and don't realize the subject is the primary editor of the topic--into thinking he's more or less squeaky clean. 2607:F2C0:E2A6:12:7827:6BFE:F8DF:B3EE (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: dude's a creep - he edits stuff specifically to avoid this. He has a MAJOR issue with fans as young as 16 and has been fired from almost every gig since 2020 when he leaked an image from RE4R to a group chat with his "Wesker's Children", he's constantly getting dropped from gigs both conventions and voice over work. he's actively doxxing at least two if not more of his former girlfriends DeadDoveMoli (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actor seems to have a stranglehold on his Wikipedia page.