Talk:Andrew Koenig

message: CNN just reported that sadly, the body found in a Vancouver Park is indeed that of Andrew Koenig's.  RIP  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spoontocal (talk • contribs) 00:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death confirmed 

message: This article needs:
* A photo
* A fleshed out, complete infobox
* A filmography section
* A section detailing his other works, including his podcast
Michaelh2001 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs to be fleshed out 

message: this link does not meet the WP:EL guidelines. It is essentially an open wiki (see the prominent EDIT button) without any evidence of "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" WP:ELNO #12.  207.69.139.137 (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're completely wrong. First of all, the site has a substantial history of stability and while some parts of it are open to editing, just like the IMDb, not all of it is, just like the IMDb. It is as valid as that link. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it's not used as a reference, it's fine. —Mike Allen 03:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "stable" maybe but no indication "and of substantial number of editors" PLUS itthe link on the article page doesnt even go to Andrew Koenig AND the TV,com site has nothing to add beyond our article content. "acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."
MM207.69.137.38 (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  improper external link: TV.com 

message: "Koenig played the role of The Joker in the critically successful 2003 fan film Batman: Dead End. " 
The "source" does not mention Koenig and Film Threat does not appear to be a site with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy anyway. MM 207.69.137.38 (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: —Mike Allen 05:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Somebody came along and did some unnecessary editing.  There were originally two refs for that sentence, the first an IMDB ref for his appearance.  That ref was the second, and is sourcing the part of the statement that the film was well received (the original wording, before the inexplicable change to "critically successful").  The ref observes it was an "instant hit", and I was referencing this assessment of the short's reception and not the review itself.  Abrazame (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are talking about this edit, you are way off base to characterize that as unnecessary. The link went to the user comments section, which is obviously user-driven since it is — ready for this — user comments. Those are not reliable comments and using that link is something that is absolutely unacceptable. Anyone can add a user comment and those are not subject to vetting. How someone could be here as long as you have and not know that is baffling. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Improper sourcing

message: portions of this coversation have been copied from the above section to separate content discussion from allegations of sockpuppetry
::::::Sock puppetry is the intent by one person to present multiple identities as independent individuals in an attempt to avoid blocks or impact !votes or otherwise impersonate multiple individuals. Clearly I have NOT been attempting to be multiple individuals, merely utilizing whichever dynamic IP address my ISP provider serves up when I log in. And you still have not provided any policies to back your position that the death as a significant facet of this article topic should NOT be covered in the lede. MM207.69.139.133 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And note that your claims of consensus are based on a (rightful) consensus not to include information based solely on unnamed sources quoted in E! magazine. The consensus made by 4 voices includes one that says " Probably wait until more sources report it?" and one that says "Wikipedia can wait until a reliable source is willing to speak to it on the record. " neither of which has come to support your removal of the content sourced without relying on unnamed sources in the very reliable Washington post. If you add the two new voices for including the death here and me, well your consensus appears to be clearly moving to inclusion. MM207.69.139.133 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

text: 5, 6, 7, 100, my ISP has lots of IP addresses it assigns. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and until the consensus changes to require editing by accounts, I see no reason to create an account. If you wish to continue making accusations of sockpuppetry, I suggest that you use the proper forum: WP:SSP. Otherwise, discuss the content and not the contributor. MM 4.158.222.148 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but what have you contributed to? Jumping from IP to IP can make it hard to keep track of. —Mike Allen 20:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "You know, I'm done responding to postings from various IPs and being expected to assume they are the same person. This is absolutely the last time. ... Now, either register one account so that the rest of us know that it is the same person or desist in muddying the waters with posts from various IPs. You never answered the question of whether you've been blocked on a previous account. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

text: And again, an IP jumping unregistered account uses yet another IP and flatly refuses to answer the question of if he is blocked from previous issues. I suspect the fact that he refuses to answer is very telling. And again, it's not allegations of sock puppetry, it's commenting on the fact that this IP knows the IP jumping raises questions and yet flatly refuses to take steps to clear up the confusion. Mmm Hmmm. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And again, whatever you "suspect", please take your suspicions to the proper notice board and not repeat your allegations without any evidence on this page. MM 207.69.137.25 (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations of sockpuppetry

message: Is the photo an Internet meme making fun of his suicide? That's not very nice. Equinox ◑ 23:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from not being nice, it was a copyright violation of the underlying photo used in the poster, used in the meme, and has been deleted. TJRC (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate photo?! 

message: The infobox lists date of death as Feb. 14th, 2010 but the article states both approximately Feb. 25th, the date his body was found, and that the last he used his cell phone or did any banking on Feb. 16th. If there's no evidence anyone else used his phone or accessed his bank account on the 15th or 16th, his date of death couldn't be the 14th. Bizzybody (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death date inconsistency. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Andrew Koenig. 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/20100522212533/http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/?id=5514&IssueNum=105 to http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/?id=5514&IssueNum=105
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) 00:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified