![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyGzpIOIniI
I have done WP:BEFORE, and I couldn't find any significant WP:RS coverage in GNEWS, and no coverage whatsoever in other searches. Let me break down Dice's mentions in online sources:
Disseminating the lead:
* alright, some RS do mention the fact that he has a YouTube channel and does man-on-the-street interviews and vlogs
† maybe four?
And finally, the only notable things Dice did were uncover one hoax, organize one protest, and send some papers to troops in Iraq. This is my take, and I believe all sources I have not mentioned but currently appear on the article are primary and are not third-party, and can only breach
WP:SPSBLP. I don't want to just nominate for deletion and get an extremely heated discussion without achieving anything, especially if my concern of
WP:GNG is unsubstantiated.
wumbolo
^^^
11:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detailI don't see any detail in the Guardian and NYT sources. wumbolo ^^^ 14:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
academic books, I see zero books at all in the references, except Dice's and one that only supports two words: conspiracy theorist.
noteworthy reviews of Dice's booksI don't see any, please tell me which references are reviews.
That source was downplaying his credibilitythen we should address it in the article, or do YOU not like it?
several more articles that devote significant coverage to DiceYes, I agree that Dice is notable for organizing one protest, making four YouTube videos, and sending papers to Iraq.
articles specifically about DiceI'm sorry but please be more specific which articles you are referring to here. You cite WP:IDONTLIKEIT; however, I have been checking WP:RSN regularly while reading through the references.
I see zero books at all in the references, except Dice's and one that only supports two words: conspiracy theorist.See this book, published by Springer Publishing, which is reference #4, and is most certainly not written by Dice. As for the rest which you claim you can't find: they're all in the references section of this article. If you can't be bothered to go through it, then I'm not willing to help further. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
noteworthy reviews of Dice's books. I have gone through the references again, and if you think this is a book review, you're very wrong about what a book review is. wumbolo ^^^ 17:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
There's opposition because this article has been subject to frequent attempts at whitewashing, sometimes driven by the subject himself. He's been covered in reliable sourcing, both mainstream books and mainstream press, for some rather negative things: he and his followers don't like that, and wants to impact how the world view him on Wikipedia. Deletion is an easy way to whitewash if the article can't be made positive. This article will not be PRODded (I will remove it if someone else here doesn't first). Again, you are more than free to take it to AfD if you want to test community consensus: that is okay, and it would be a good faith nomination, but this article unquestionably does not qualify from PROD at this time, as it would not be uncontroversial. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Wumbolo:Did you really think that this was an "uncontroversial deletion" and really expected "no opposition to the deletion"? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Also notability is not temporary, if he was notable 10 years ago he still is. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I object to these removals. Some of the material are primary sources, yes, but those are sufficient for verification purposes, especially if it is for things such as the books he has self-published and what he claims about himself. I think we should restore the material that has been removed. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
As he has now walked away we can stop discussing this. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I am not the most impartial person to ask, but the description of Mark Dice in the lead as a conspiracy theorist seems debatable. A quick internet search for mark dice shows various sources describing him as a "right wing commentator" or a "conservative pundit" as opposed to someone like Alex Jones who is called a "conspiracy theorist" which he doesn't deny. Here are some examples from a quick search I did:
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/twitter-suspends-conservative/ https://thinkprogress.org/trolls-fake-starbucks-coupons-racial-slurs-f456ebe52b05/ https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/twitter-suspends-right-wing-commentator-mark-dice-for-saying-transsexualism
The secret societies stuff could perhaps be moved to a new sentence, paragraph or the career section.
Thanks, trainsandtech ( talk) 01:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Conspiracy theorist should be removed from the lede. Sovietmessiah ( talk) 04:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Under the playbutton section in the infobox it says "???" and after some research [1] I found out that he hit 100k on 5/19/2013.
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Mark Dice has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The three question marks that are where the date he hit 100k subscribers should be changed to 5/19/2013 or "2013" to fit the format. [1] Alex Microbe ( talk) 02:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
References
The lede mentions him as an author based on a casual NYT mention as such. Author implies that he wrote books. Is there any source regarding this? Did he write at least one book? Or just texts on his personal website? Someone Not Awful ( talk) 03:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The True Story of Fake News (Dice 2017), is a big hit amongst readers. This book is well sourced, and dissents mainstream sources. There is a real discussion about censorship of conservative voices, and there needs to be free speech regarding this issue.
I've read several comments from Wiki people that they "don't tolerate" x or y, yet it appears that they do tolerate x and y on Wiki sites about liberals. Or that they make up rules that apply to Mark Dice (i.e. "we don't tolerate threats of legal action on Wiki" that don't apply to liberal persons or subjects because those liberal persons never say such things.) In other words, they choose to censor Mark Dice for specific comments or concepts that don't appear on liberal sites or apply to other Wiki sites about liberals. For example, if Mark Dice was quoted as saying "I will be voting for Trump" Wiki authorities would say, "We don't permit endorsements of political candidates on Wiki." Wiki authorities seem to figure out ways to ban comments or concepts only used by Mark Dice and Conservatives. It just seems that they are legalistically applying rules to Mark Dice and his Wiki page that are loosely applied, or not applicable, to pages about liberal persons and entities.
OP recruited by bad-faith off-site canvassing, isn't really here to suggest improvements but to whine |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I don’t mean to upset anyone by promoting, unintentionally of course, the Nuclear Family. But… my Dad had a favorite saying: “If you have to LIE to make your point do you really have a point to be made?’ This Wikipedia description of Mr. Dice is so incredibly misleading and void of truth it is the reason why 5th Graders are told NOT to rely on Wikipedia as an accurate source of information. Mark Dice has written more best sellers than most who attempt to do so. His YouTube channel does incredibly well and he has not written one book, but many (all very successful). My last point… he has done more for the betterment and education of the masses from his Kitchen Table than Wikipedia has done to mislead the naïve. You can’t live the life of a Liberal without living the life of a Hypocrite – that’s my saying :-) - James T. Ryder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythology8 ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
We are already disusing this above, stop starting new sections. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC) |
Here are additional Reliable Sources, that describe me as a Media Analyst.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/6/inside-the-beltway-independent-media-rallies-behin/ http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/06/tech-giants-facebook-apple-youtube-ditch-controversial-infowars-star-alex-jones.html http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/06/video-hillary-clinton-supporters-ok-repealing-bill-rights -- MarkDice ( talk) 20:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
So TonyBallioni, Fox News and the Washington Times aren't reliable sources? That's ridiculous. -- MarkDice ( talk) 20:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Let me guess, you think CNN is a reliable source? hahaha. -- MarkDice ( talk) 00:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The Washington Post calls me a Media Analyst here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/09/21/a-short-history-of-the-word-dotard-which-north-korea-called-trump/?noredirect=on
The London Telegraph calls me Media Analyst here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/12/09/dumpstarwars-alt-right-twitter-call-rogue-one-boycott-claiming/
The Kansas City Star calls me a Media Analyst here: https://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/article224555505.html
The Daily Caller says I'm a media analyst here: https://dailycaller.com/2017/02/23/cnns-chris-cuomo-wants-tolerance-of-naked-men-in-womens-restrooms/ -- MarkDice ( talk) 00:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
NewsBusters calls me a Media Analyst here: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2017/06/03/london-terror-attacks-cnn-host-reza-aslan-curses-out-trump
Miami New Times calls me a media analyst here: https://www.miaminewtimes.com/music/walmart-allegedly-pulls-rick-ross-album-from-shelves-over-trump-assassination-lyric-8124365 -- MarkDice ( talk) 00:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I have a Bachelor's degree in Communication, so yeah, I have the credentials to be a media analyst...and that's what I do on my YouTube channel, and in my bestselling book, The True Story of Fake News. Not to mention the multiple Reliable Sources that also identify me as one -- MarkDice ( talk) 08:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
You know someone can be an right wing media analyst and a conspiracy theorist at the same time? Slatersteven ( talk) 09:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
None of these sections are useful
|
---|
What is up with Wikipedia? This in nonsense.
Why does this Wikipedia page not allow you to edit? This man is very much active with 1.4 million subscribers. He presents conservative views on you tube, is still an author and is far More than just “conspiracy theorist “. Thought Wikipedia was at least safe from censorship. Last time I donate Modiculous ( talk) 13:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Seriously you all need to allow anyone to update Mark Dice's wikipedia page, it's incredibly inaccurate currently and not up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.228.47 ( talk) 13:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I notice the Mark Dice page is out of date by nearly a decade, why is that ?
As a non-partisan Wikipedia editor, the gymnastics editors here are performing to try and justify why significant portions of information should not be included on his page shows clear bias, which is something Wikipedia, as any encyclopedia, should strive to avoid. The purpose of this encyclopedia should be the dissemination of relevant information, not the withholding of it. And this individuals television appearances, books authored and YouTube counts are relevant to his career. TridentMan123 ( talk) 13:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree, he has written at least ten books (according to Amazon) so there should be a proper bibliography section. Darmot and gilad ( talk) 13:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
See wp:soapbox Any comments that are not directly related to improving the article can just be deleted. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC) |
Editors may want to participate in a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 14#Template:Infobox YouTube personality. wumbolo ^^^ 17:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
prompted by recruitment from the subject's YouTube prompting may result in a prompt block from editing. Mark Dice related blocks Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The 'Amazon reviews' controversy -- it's just a link to metacritic ReviewMeta? Who is saying it's a "controversy?" This feels like original research to me.
valereee (
talk)
11:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Mark Dice is one of the most popular news commentator channels on YouTube who is best known for his youtube channel. He has millions of subscribers and over 350 million views which amounts to more views than the HuffPost youtube channel. Mark is clearly a very notable Youtube personality. today he is mainly known in the media and online because of his youtube channels vast activity and social reach. The youtube personality "info box" is the gold standard on Wikipedia for information on youtubers, especially those with a large social reach online of views and subscriber base. The info box continues to be used on every single youtubers Wikipedia ( Pewdiepies page) except Mark Dice, therefore it is past due on this page. Pewdiepies page on Wikipedia is the current standard for Youtubers as it is rated WP:GA and has tons of controversial attention to it similarly to Mark Dices page. If the info box exists on a controversial youtuber like PewdiePie and it makes it part of a "Good Article" on Wikipedia, bring the info box to Mark Dice (the most popular conservative commentator of news on Youtube by far. If not #1, he's top 3. Notable youtuber). Megat503 ( talk) 23:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Youtube subscriber counts don't impress me. They are not audited or reflective of popularity. Google "buying youtube subscribers" for some reasons. Legacypac ( talk) 00:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
According to this he is not even in the top 5000 [ [7]] youtubers, hard to see how that really makes him all that significant as a youtuber. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
[ [8]], might be able to use this. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC) And this is a good example of why some do not truth the WP, it does not say why he was blocked, and implies it was because of his views. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the "Amazon reviews" section from the article because the content was undue. ReviewMeta's "fail" designation isn't a controversy, because the designation didn't receive any coverage in reliable sources. From what I can see, ReviewMeta indiscriminately evaluates every single Amazon link that gets submitted into the website. — Newslinger talk 12:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Cool. Sorry. Crazy page history. Maybe you or MPants at work could remove it since the consensus appears to be against inclusion unless sources cover them? I would, but I’ve already removed it twice. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I the only one who believes that JW is near-singly responsible for the mess that is unfurling over here? ∯WBG converse 15:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyGzpIOIniI
I have done WP:BEFORE, and I couldn't find any significant WP:RS coverage in GNEWS, and no coverage whatsoever in other searches. Let me break down Dice's mentions in online sources:
Disseminating the lead:
* alright, some RS do mention the fact that he has a YouTube channel and does man-on-the-street interviews and vlogs
† maybe four?
And finally, the only notable things Dice did were uncover one hoax, organize one protest, and send some papers to troops in Iraq. This is my take, and I believe all sources I have not mentioned but currently appear on the article are primary and are not third-party, and can only breach
WP:SPSBLP. I don't want to just nominate for deletion and get an extremely heated discussion without achieving anything, especially if my concern of
WP:GNG is unsubstantiated.
wumbolo
^^^
11:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detailI don't see any detail in the Guardian and NYT sources. wumbolo ^^^ 14:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
academic books, I see zero books at all in the references, except Dice's and one that only supports two words: conspiracy theorist.
noteworthy reviews of Dice's booksI don't see any, please tell me which references are reviews.
That source was downplaying his credibilitythen we should address it in the article, or do YOU not like it?
several more articles that devote significant coverage to DiceYes, I agree that Dice is notable for organizing one protest, making four YouTube videos, and sending papers to Iraq.
articles specifically about DiceI'm sorry but please be more specific which articles you are referring to here. You cite WP:IDONTLIKEIT; however, I have been checking WP:RSN regularly while reading through the references.
I see zero books at all in the references, except Dice's and one that only supports two words: conspiracy theorist.See this book, published by Springer Publishing, which is reference #4, and is most certainly not written by Dice. As for the rest which you claim you can't find: they're all in the references section of this article. If you can't be bothered to go through it, then I'm not willing to help further. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
noteworthy reviews of Dice's books. I have gone through the references again, and if you think this is a book review, you're very wrong about what a book review is. wumbolo ^^^ 17:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
There's opposition because this article has been subject to frequent attempts at whitewashing, sometimes driven by the subject himself. He's been covered in reliable sourcing, both mainstream books and mainstream press, for some rather negative things: he and his followers don't like that, and wants to impact how the world view him on Wikipedia. Deletion is an easy way to whitewash if the article can't be made positive. This article will not be PRODded (I will remove it if someone else here doesn't first). Again, you are more than free to take it to AfD if you want to test community consensus: that is okay, and it would be a good faith nomination, but this article unquestionably does not qualify from PROD at this time, as it would not be uncontroversial. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Wumbolo:Did you really think that this was an "uncontroversial deletion" and really expected "no opposition to the deletion"? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Also notability is not temporary, if he was notable 10 years ago he still is. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I object to these removals. Some of the material are primary sources, yes, but those are sufficient for verification purposes, especially if it is for things such as the books he has self-published and what he claims about himself. I think we should restore the material that has been removed. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
As he has now walked away we can stop discussing this. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I am not the most impartial person to ask, but the description of Mark Dice in the lead as a conspiracy theorist seems debatable. A quick internet search for mark dice shows various sources describing him as a "right wing commentator" or a "conservative pundit" as opposed to someone like Alex Jones who is called a "conspiracy theorist" which he doesn't deny. Here are some examples from a quick search I did:
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/twitter-suspends-conservative/ https://thinkprogress.org/trolls-fake-starbucks-coupons-racial-slurs-f456ebe52b05/ https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/twitter-suspends-right-wing-commentator-mark-dice-for-saying-transsexualism
The secret societies stuff could perhaps be moved to a new sentence, paragraph or the career section.
Thanks, trainsandtech ( talk) 01:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Conspiracy theorist should be removed from the lede. Sovietmessiah ( talk) 04:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Under the playbutton section in the infobox it says "???" and after some research [1] I found out that he hit 100k on 5/19/2013.
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Mark Dice has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The three question marks that are where the date he hit 100k subscribers should be changed to 5/19/2013 or "2013" to fit the format. [1] Alex Microbe ( talk) 02:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
References
The lede mentions him as an author based on a casual NYT mention as such. Author implies that he wrote books. Is there any source regarding this? Did he write at least one book? Or just texts on his personal website? Someone Not Awful ( talk) 03:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The True Story of Fake News (Dice 2017), is a big hit amongst readers. This book is well sourced, and dissents mainstream sources. There is a real discussion about censorship of conservative voices, and there needs to be free speech regarding this issue.
I've read several comments from Wiki people that they "don't tolerate" x or y, yet it appears that they do tolerate x and y on Wiki sites about liberals. Or that they make up rules that apply to Mark Dice (i.e. "we don't tolerate threats of legal action on Wiki" that don't apply to liberal persons or subjects because those liberal persons never say such things.) In other words, they choose to censor Mark Dice for specific comments or concepts that don't appear on liberal sites or apply to other Wiki sites about liberals. For example, if Mark Dice was quoted as saying "I will be voting for Trump" Wiki authorities would say, "We don't permit endorsements of political candidates on Wiki." Wiki authorities seem to figure out ways to ban comments or concepts only used by Mark Dice and Conservatives. It just seems that they are legalistically applying rules to Mark Dice and his Wiki page that are loosely applied, or not applicable, to pages about liberal persons and entities.
OP recruited by bad-faith off-site canvassing, isn't really here to suggest improvements but to whine |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I don’t mean to upset anyone by promoting, unintentionally of course, the Nuclear Family. But… my Dad had a favorite saying: “If you have to LIE to make your point do you really have a point to be made?’ This Wikipedia description of Mr. Dice is so incredibly misleading and void of truth it is the reason why 5th Graders are told NOT to rely on Wikipedia as an accurate source of information. Mark Dice has written more best sellers than most who attempt to do so. His YouTube channel does incredibly well and he has not written one book, but many (all very successful). My last point… he has done more for the betterment and education of the masses from his Kitchen Table than Wikipedia has done to mislead the naïve. You can’t live the life of a Liberal without living the life of a Hypocrite – that’s my saying :-) - James T. Ryder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythology8 ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
We are already disusing this above, stop starting new sections. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC) |
Here are additional Reliable Sources, that describe me as a Media Analyst.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/6/inside-the-beltway-independent-media-rallies-behin/ http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/06/tech-giants-facebook-apple-youtube-ditch-controversial-infowars-star-alex-jones.html http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/06/video-hillary-clinton-supporters-ok-repealing-bill-rights -- MarkDice ( talk) 20:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
So TonyBallioni, Fox News and the Washington Times aren't reliable sources? That's ridiculous. -- MarkDice ( talk) 20:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Let me guess, you think CNN is a reliable source? hahaha. -- MarkDice ( talk) 00:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The Washington Post calls me a Media Analyst here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/09/21/a-short-history-of-the-word-dotard-which-north-korea-called-trump/?noredirect=on
The London Telegraph calls me Media Analyst here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/12/09/dumpstarwars-alt-right-twitter-call-rogue-one-boycott-claiming/
The Kansas City Star calls me a Media Analyst here: https://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/article224555505.html
The Daily Caller says I'm a media analyst here: https://dailycaller.com/2017/02/23/cnns-chris-cuomo-wants-tolerance-of-naked-men-in-womens-restrooms/ -- MarkDice ( talk) 00:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
NewsBusters calls me a Media Analyst here: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2017/06/03/london-terror-attacks-cnn-host-reza-aslan-curses-out-trump
Miami New Times calls me a media analyst here: https://www.miaminewtimes.com/music/walmart-allegedly-pulls-rick-ross-album-from-shelves-over-trump-assassination-lyric-8124365 -- MarkDice ( talk) 00:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I have a Bachelor's degree in Communication, so yeah, I have the credentials to be a media analyst...and that's what I do on my YouTube channel, and in my bestselling book, The True Story of Fake News. Not to mention the multiple Reliable Sources that also identify me as one -- MarkDice ( talk) 08:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
You know someone can be an right wing media analyst and a conspiracy theorist at the same time? Slatersteven ( talk) 09:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
None of these sections are useful
|
---|
What is up with Wikipedia? This in nonsense.
Why does this Wikipedia page not allow you to edit? This man is very much active with 1.4 million subscribers. He presents conservative views on you tube, is still an author and is far More than just “conspiracy theorist “. Thought Wikipedia was at least safe from censorship. Last time I donate Modiculous ( talk) 13:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Seriously you all need to allow anyone to update Mark Dice's wikipedia page, it's incredibly inaccurate currently and not up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.228.47 ( talk) 13:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I notice the Mark Dice page is out of date by nearly a decade, why is that ?
As a non-partisan Wikipedia editor, the gymnastics editors here are performing to try and justify why significant portions of information should not be included on his page shows clear bias, which is something Wikipedia, as any encyclopedia, should strive to avoid. The purpose of this encyclopedia should be the dissemination of relevant information, not the withholding of it. And this individuals television appearances, books authored and YouTube counts are relevant to his career. TridentMan123 ( talk) 13:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree, he has written at least ten books (according to Amazon) so there should be a proper bibliography section. Darmot and gilad ( talk) 13:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
See wp:soapbox Any comments that are not directly related to improving the article can just be deleted. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC) |
Editors may want to participate in a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 14#Template:Infobox YouTube personality. wumbolo ^^^ 17:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
prompted by recruitment from the subject's YouTube prompting may result in a prompt block from editing. Mark Dice related blocks Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The 'Amazon reviews' controversy -- it's just a link to metacritic ReviewMeta? Who is saying it's a "controversy?" This feels like original research to me.
valereee (
talk)
11:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Mark Dice is one of the most popular news commentator channels on YouTube who is best known for his youtube channel. He has millions of subscribers and over 350 million views which amounts to more views than the HuffPost youtube channel. Mark is clearly a very notable Youtube personality. today he is mainly known in the media and online because of his youtube channels vast activity and social reach. The youtube personality "info box" is the gold standard on Wikipedia for information on youtubers, especially those with a large social reach online of views and subscriber base. The info box continues to be used on every single youtubers Wikipedia ( Pewdiepies page) except Mark Dice, therefore it is past due on this page. Pewdiepies page on Wikipedia is the current standard for Youtubers as it is rated WP:GA and has tons of controversial attention to it similarly to Mark Dices page. If the info box exists on a controversial youtuber like PewdiePie and it makes it part of a "Good Article" on Wikipedia, bring the info box to Mark Dice (the most popular conservative commentator of news on Youtube by far. If not #1, he's top 3. Notable youtuber). Megat503 ( talk) 23:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Youtube subscriber counts don't impress me. They are not audited or reflective of popularity. Google "buying youtube subscribers" for some reasons. Legacypac ( talk) 00:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
According to this he is not even in the top 5000 [ [7]] youtubers, hard to see how that really makes him all that significant as a youtuber. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
[ [8]], might be able to use this. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC) And this is a good example of why some do not truth the WP, it does not say why he was blocked, and implies it was because of his views. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the "Amazon reviews" section from the article because the content was undue. ReviewMeta's "fail" designation isn't a controversy, because the designation didn't receive any coverage in reliable sources. From what I can see, ReviewMeta indiscriminately evaluates every single Amazon link that gets submitted into the website. — Newslinger talk 12:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Cool. Sorry. Crazy page history. Maybe you or MPants at work could remove it since the consensus appears to be against inclusion unless sources cover them? I would, but I’ve already removed it twice. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I the only one who believes that JW is near-singly responsible for the mess that is unfurling over here? ∯WBG converse 15:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)