Talk:DontDateHimGirl.com

Neutrality

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

The "Spin-off" projects section contains testimonials about the website owner (e.g. quotations stating she has several successful websites and is an acknowledged social media expert) . But these testimonials come from unattributed text on her own website. In other words, it seems like the website owner is tooting her own horn, but it's written in such a way that it appears to be coming from a third-party source. This should be clarified. You're basically allowing the subject of the article to write her own article, it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.2.180 (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected

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)

Article Integrity

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)

The second lawsuit was, in fact, dismissed after the defense made an agreement with the plaintiff. It's wrong to use language which suggests that the judge dismissed the case in the absence of such agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The case was actually only dismissed after Hollis agreed to settle. The language in the article should reflect this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As may be read in the order to dismiss the federal lawsuit, the US District Court judge retained jurisdiction "to the extent necessary to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement." This makes it impossible for anyone to deny that there was no settlement between the two parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The blog reference links to all court documents. The pdf reference is the court document which gives specific evidence of the settlement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Broken Link: Carl (2006-07-05). "Scorned Attorney Sues Kiss-and-Tell Web Site". Daily Business Review. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1151658319991. If not fixed, this link should be removed. Without a linked reference, the statement about the legal assertions will be unsupported and should be removed.

To be objective, both Hollis and Cunningham assertions are now properly sourced by court documents. The fact that a settlement was reached and needed to be enforced by the judge is sourced by a court document. No specifics about the settlement are provided. Can we agree that this is fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not even trying to work with me to present something accurate. Why do you insist on deleting the links to the court documents? Are you Tasha?

I included language about the CDA protection claim and found a reference for it. Now the article contains both a claim by Hollis and a claim by Cunningham which should be viewed as fair. I’m willing to work on the wording, but you have to admit that it’s fair to present both sides.

I've excluded language about the Hollis posting being removed because I'm not willing to post my screen shot of the 'no record found' search for Hollis which is dated a few weeks after the settlement.

I've proven that this case was settled after the judge did not grant the motion to dismiss. This fact is very germane to the paragraph and should be included.

Are you willing to work with me here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you Tasha? Why aren't you willing to be fair with respect to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why won't you answer about being Tasha? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.242.226 (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing war

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)

Substantive rewrite and expansion

Since the article has been dormant and unattended to, I took a stab at a substantive rewrite and expansion using references from news sources. As a caveat, to forestall accusations of any COI, I should note that my particular awareness of this site was spurred by mysteriously appearing on it, much to my surprise. However, the content I've provided aims to present a balanced perspective that meets WP's WP:NPV requirements. --HidariMigi (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

So you were posted on the site and you actually think that gives you an objective point of view to edit this page? You should not be editing this page because the things you've put on it are absolutely inaccurate and a half-hearted attempt to skew the view of the site and its owner in a negative light. Since when is a blog post from "Paula Neal Mooney" on Associated Content (a content mill), a news source. And what about "She runs a consulting company...". This is a page about DDHG the website, not about Tasha Cunningham. I am reporting this to Wiki editors. You do not have an objective view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.196.241 (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Interestingly, the above IP has exclusively edited this article, from an address that resolves to Miami, FL -- the home of DDHG. I'd suggest, as others have above, that edits by this anon are by the principal(s) involved with this web site, and as such violate COI. I've stated my introduction to this site-- but that doesn't preclude me from neutral, accurate editing, using sourced material. Why is it that 76.108.196.241 is likewise unable to do so?

Apparently, the anon has not bothered to research how Wikipedia works. S/he has no problem with labeling sourced content here as "absolutely inaccurate" and "negative light" while DDGH traffics in promoting posting of falsehoods about individuals, as it has been consistently criticized for by the media. In regards to "reporting this to Wiki editors" -- Good luck! The likelihood is that the IP address's edits will be banned on this article. --HidariMigi (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• In deference to the objection over citing what initially appeared to be a 2007 article at AmericanChronicle -- which on further research, turns out to have been inaccurate-- I've instead found the primary source from 2005/2006 (written by Tasha Joseph-Cunningam) and replaced the information with the original announcements. --HidariMigi (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed erroneous links to the DontDateHimGirl.com blog. The link previously provided is not correct. Removed the erroneous links to "cheater view". The link simply went back to the site's homepage and not a page that had anything to do with a "mobi cheater view". —Preceding unsigned comment added by WriterEditorPenn (talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia. Attempts to whitewash an article are a bit too obvious when you merely delete sections that are critical of your site -- particularly when you do so from a newly created account whose only edits are to remove content from this single article. Conflict-of-interest edits are immediately suspect, and held to a higher standard to avoid being considered merely an attempt to spin the article in a favorable light. If you wish to introduce what you consider to be a differing view, provide new or different content that cite reliable sources -- rather than just expunging what you don't like. Please see WP:AVOIDCOI and WP:V -HidariMigi (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

HidariMigi,

By your own admission, you are someone who has been posted on the site. Therefore, you cannot be an unbiased contributor. Wikipedia is for unbiased editing. You clearly have a bias towards the site. That is why you have continuing tried to put false information on the site and reflect it negatively to soothe your own anger. Here are some questions for you:

1. You wrote under the Controversies section that "five unidentified women for material posted about him that included claims that he had a sexually transmitted disease and was gay, neither of which were true." How do you know that it was not true? Are you Todd attempting to edit the page as someone else? How would you know that?

2. Second, you quote a DontDateHimGirl blogger site that does not belong to DontDateHimGirl. There are thousands of fake site purporting to be created by DontDateHimGirl. On the DontDateHimGirl site it clearly states that the only official blog resides on their site - http://dontdatehimgirl.com/blog. All others are imitations. Yet, you insist on quoting a fake blog from 2005 and presenting it as though it were the official blog. Why would you quote a fake blog and purport it as fact? Is it because you were posted on the site and you want to paint it in a negative light?

3. Third, you posted a link to a Tom Lykeis interview, which was not given by DontDateHimGirl. If you did your research, as you should if you are going to be editing Wiki pages, that the interview was a prank and that it was not the person who was the owner of DontDateHimGirl at the time that was interviewed.

4. Fourth, you claim that the database is still available on the site when it is CLEARLY NOT available. A simple visit to the site would have told you that. The site is now set up where you can only post comments in 7 categories of dating advice. There is no database on the site. Why would you state that when you know it is not true?

5. You deleted an entry under spinoff projects that the site had been purchased for a TV show called Don't Date Him Girl. That citation was verified and supported by an article in the Hollywood Reporter and Daily Variety. Why would you delete that?

The fact is you should not be editing this page because you have been posted on the site. You have never edited anything else on Wikipedia. It is clear that you are totally biased because you were posted on the site. Do not use Wikipedia to exact your revenge. You are doing a disservice to Wiki readers and editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WriterEditorPenn (talk • contribs) 16:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

An obvious lack of understanding of Wikipedia betrays this single purpose account's involvement with the subject of this article. I previously stated that my awareness of the site came from discovering a years-old posting about me. That hardly qualifies as being "angry" or "biased." What it does qualify for is having a certain level of awareness and perspective of someone who was surprised/amused to have the site show up via Google connected to my name. One might well ask, again, why the various socket puppets who appear here to remove content, are incapable of acknowledging their clear conflict-of-interest?

And contrary to the clueless contention, I've been a Wikipedian for (at least) three years, and made hundreds of edits to a numerous range of articles, not exclusively this one, as the above editor has done. So I'm more than capable of providing a balanced, neutral point of view-- one that doesn't gloss over the criticisms of the subject, as this editor clearly wishes to be done.

In responding to the claims the editor raises-- how does one begin when faced with intentional misinformation and possible prevarication? To follow the order of concerns raised above:

1. The statement "material posted about him that included claims that he had a sexually transmitted disease and was gay, neither of which were true" is based on published sources. But you're right, that particular line doesn't have the explicit citation. To whit: "...Among the allegations: Hollis was bisexual, lived in "a dump," and knowingly spread herpes. Hollis set the record straight for New Times: He is not currently in a relationship; he has, at times, casually dated more than one woman at a time; he does not have herpes; he does not wear dirty clothes; his home is, in fact, clean."[1] And I just came across this additional source (thanks to WriterEditorPenn!): "How would you like it if a Web site posted false information about you, for example, that you have a sexually transmitted disease or that you pay for sex?
   That's exactly what Todd Hollis, 38, claims happened to him on a Web site called DontDateHimGirl.com" [2]
2. The quotes in question were taken from the original DontDateHimGirl.BlogSpot.com entries written by Tasha, accessible via the Wayback Machine at Archive.org. From 2005 until May 5, 2006, DDHG clearly linked "Visit Our Blog" to the Blogspot site. See, for example, [3]. The entries may have subsequently been deleted, but that doesn't mean they are "fake" or never existed. Sorry, but it ain't 1984.
3. "... the interview was a prank and that it was not the person who was the owner of DontDateHimGirl at the time that was interviewed." Certainly the most droll "prank" in history to be interviewed by Tom Leykis as the founder of DontDateHimGirl. I think we can safely discard the laughable (but not humourously so), oddly-worded assertion that Tasha didn't give that interview.
4. "you claim that the database is still available on the site when it is CLEARLY NOT available" Really? So this must be imaginary: "cheater view" Jude Law or "post" about Jude Law (which then clicks through every other entry in the database.)
5. Looking through the history, there was a claim, "In 2009, the Hollywood Reporter trade publication reported that Shine Reveille, producers of hit shows like Ugly Betty, the Office and the Biggest Loser, picked up the U.S. rights for a TV show called Don't Date Him Girl" The citation went to a [4] for a Hollywood Reporter article which couldn't be verified. But here it is two years later, and no such show has materialised. Ipso facto, it's not a citeable "spin off."

In sum, it's difficult to take an AGF perspective when reading such blatant attempts at whitewashing. --HidariMigi (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Suprisingly", the Jude Law post mysteriously no longer works, but I'm curious, is this the database that is being referred to, that is no longer accessible? I'm not going to link one, for privacy reasons, but if you enter http://www.dontdatehimgirl.com/posts/XXXX/ and replace the XXXX with a random number, about half of the random numbers will return to the main site, but the other half will yield a profile of a specific male, and why you should not date him. You can then scroll through the Previous Post and Next Post. Is this the database that is "not available"? - SudoGhost™ 03:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Surprising, it is. And makes it highly apparent someone with administrative privileges at that site has (at the least) been monitoring this discussion, and pointedly deleted that single database entry-- since prior to a week ago, the Jude Law post was live, as can be seen in this Google cached version: [5] So yes, you've stumbled upon the supposedly "not available" database that the site's PR claimed was removed last year (but obviously hasn't been). It can still be accessed starting with this post. A simple Google search reveals thousands more of those live or cached entries. --HidariMigi (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

removal of chunk of info

ErrantX removed a bunch of info, which was readded by HidariMigi, which I subsequently also removed (you can see the material in question in the diff of my removal). HidariMigi brought up the issue on the talk page of ErrantX and myself; I explained my rationale for removal there (see User Talk:ErrantX#Re: Edits at DontDateHimGirl.com). I believe that all of the info removed is undue, as it is either common to almost all websites (the membership part at the beginning) or was part of a project that was never actually started (the spinoff about allegedly cheating women). I could, however, see including a single sentence about the spinoff site, using a NYT article listed on ErrantX's talk page as a good citation. I'd like to hear the thoughts of others. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The article needs a good going over; the book and the legal action convinced me that this was just barely notable enough not to be deleted. I'll post a couple of sections below with my thoughts on the deleted content.

Oh, also, looking at the site it looks to be no long of the form described in the lead, so we probably need to switch to past tense and explain that it has re-focused (though whether there is a source for that, no idea) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed, that the text should get a good revision (even a minor railway platform can become a good article with enough eyes!) The site does appear to have changed its modus operandi from aiming primarily to provide a venue for public ridicule of men, to generic self-help postings -- which is likely why it doesn't get much attention any more. However, as noted in a section above, much of its controversial database is still accessible, extensively linked via other sites, even if apparently hidden directly. It also maintains a minimally-used set of forums which function as a substitute for posting to the database. It might behoove us to differentiate the historical version of the site from its current state. --HidariMigi (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately we need a reliable source to do that for us. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• The database seems to be dead, and according to some cached pages that I found has been redirecting /posts/ to the main page since about January. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, just some of the database entries have been deleted. As pointed out earlier, starting with this entry anyone can click through the current existent posts. Amusingly, the ones that seem to get deleted are the ones linked here, so don't be surprised if that one disappears. --HidariMigi (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Not surprisingly-- as it's obvious the principals of the site monitor this article-- whenever a link to the supposedly non-existent database is updated, that particular entry is deleted from the database. However, the database itself continues to be available, and the start merely moves to another post, such as this one. One must wonder, knowing that the database is available, why those running the site haven't merely removed it entirely, rather than just "hiding" it and pretending the database was taken down-- unless they believe there is some benefit to the thousands of google links to the entries. --HidariMigi (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Site description

Membership to the site is offered to anyone with an email address. Members are able to anonymously post the name, photograph and description of a man they claim they dated. The site's terms of use requests that postings not contain anything untrue or defamatory however, no information is checked for veracity prior to publication. The site's owner suggests that men can rebut postings made about them by logging on to the site and creating an account to post their comments, or directly contacting the authors of the postings made about them through a link that appears on each posting.

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:

Members were able to post anonymous reviews and photographs to the site. When asked about the accuracy of reviews, Joseph said that the website terms and conditions required posted content to be true, and said that men could also join the website to respond to messages.

Thoughts? --Errant ^(chat!) 15:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Your rewording reads very well. I would suggest it would need a citation, if quoting Joseph (at some point, taking the married name Cunningham.) Going back through the logs, a version of the language had been in existence since April 2006 and was apparently added during a spree of less-than-NPOV edits.--HidariMigi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC).

DontDateHerMan.com

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)

Some sourcing you may have missed:

• "Formerly an exclusive outlet for women, the Web site has tentative plans to launch a partner in crime - Don't Date Her Man, www.dontdateherman.com - in the future, although the idea is still being researched, Cunningham said." ("Found love? Check him out here" Beloit Daily News, August 30, 2007)
• "Accepting this maxim, Ms Joseph is planning to launch another website later this month - Dontdateherman.com." ("Caution: Don't date... him", The Independent, 5 March 2006)
• "In the interest of fairness, Ms. Joseph hopes to set up dontdateherman.com for the boys to vent their rage against women." ("Thoughts on marriage, shoes, and love gone bad", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, March 22, 2006)
• "Voor mannen die beweren het slachtoffer te zijn van manzieke vrouwen, start ze binnenkort een nieuwe website: dontdateherman.com." (Translation: "For men who claim to be victims of nymphomaniacs, she will soon launch a new website: dontdateherman.com." "Website waarschuwt vrouwen voor rokkenjagers" (Translation: "Website warns women of womanizers"), Nieuwsblad (Belgium), March 6, 2006)
• "A countering Web site, dontdateherman.com, is in development and will be up the first week of April." ("Site spotlights cheating men, warns women" The University Daily Kansan, March 15, 2006)
• "La Joseph promette che presto arriverà la versione maschile del sito, dontdateherman.com, ma dichiara di comprendere la rabbia delle donne e di difenderle e proteggerle tramite la scelta dell'anonimato." Translation: "Joseph promises that there will soon be a male version of the site, dontdateherman.com, but claims to understand the anger of women and to defend them and protect them through the choice of anonymity." (Siete state tradite dal vostro uomo? Sul web c'è la riscossa delle donne La Repubblica (Italy), 17 February, 2006)
• "Male focus groups axed Cunningham's idea for Dontdateherman.com, a similar concept for men to avoid female liars, but Greatguystodate.com will be up by June 1. 'It's wonderful men who nominate themselves or are nominated by the women in their lives,' she says." (Outing" the Online Liars", Contra Costa Times 10 April, 2007)

There are additional articles, however access is limited to pay-to-read sites. --HidariMigi (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

• 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." [6] 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."[7] 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)

Changes to the article

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)

Why do you keep reverting the ownership information out of the article? The information added by HidariMigi is incorrect. The site creator's husband owns that company, not the creator. The site is owned by TCJ Media Group, Inc. I have checked Florida corporation records and also it was part of the lawsuit documents. A lot of people want to know how to contact the site and this information is very helpful. Why would you allow HidariMigi to put information into an article that is incorrect and has nothing to do with the site? This is really wrong. No wonder so many people discredit Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb782 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

I added the sources for the both the site ownership information and the additional spin-off project, a TV show based on the site. Both are SOURCED. Let's see what HidariMigi does now. He will probably try to revert it like he always does. --Jb782 (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This does not verify the information you inserted into the article. - SudoGhost 23:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

And adamsmedia sure does not look like a reliable source to me; removed w/sentence. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I added another source for the ownership information which was buried directly on the DontDateHimGirl.com site. My original source for the court documents was correct, but you have to go the initial 2006 court filing to find it, which I know SudoGhost did not do. It is on page 102 of the very first filing. Nevertheless, I added a source directly from the site. You can't get much more verifiable than that. --Jb782 (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Note - Jb782 was blocked as a sockpuppet of WriterEditorPenn, and the edits made by the sockpuppet appear to either be removed or corrected, so this section appears to be resolved. - SudoGhost 22:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)