DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Loserfruit

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Profile Picture

[edit]

I refuse to believe that is the picture that best shows what Loserfruit looks like. Is there a reason that is what was chosen? Daneonwayne (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2023

[edit]

Please remove the "Controversy" section of the page - the information provided is inaccurate, and the sources provided do not provide justification to the claims made in the article. The information also provides a one-sided view without acknowledging the strongly limited role Loserfruit had to play in any of the activities. Undead575 (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Business address in lead

[edit]

"Her business address is (address redacted Courcelles (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)) Isn't this... an odd choice of inclusion within the first few lines of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.236.241 (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was debating where to add the addition.
It seemed the most fitting to add it there after the "is located in Melbourne". Anywhere else would make less sense. If you have another idea of where it would fit better i am open for suggestions however. Ubdead575 (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Free to use profile picture

[edit]

I have a profile picture thats free to use for this article. I can't edit the page since my account doesn't have 500 edits yet. Any editors here that could add it? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Loserfruit_in_2021.png Http iosue (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asking third party opinions.

[edit]

Good day,

I would like to ask the opinion of other editors about a recent edit and revert.

My last edit got reverted because it was considered a readding of vandalism made by an account that got blocked years ago. Checked the account in question and account was banned for sockpuppetry back in the day and the edit itself was not considered vandalism. The edit itself seemed fine to be included in the page

To prevent an edit war, i would like to ask if adding a controvery section is against blb rules as long as it is written neutrally and well documented by sources? Consensus on valkyrae her wikipage for example seems like its allowed, since it is still in there after being reviewed countless times by editors. The rules about blp seems to indicate it is allowed as well but want to have extra opinions.

Can always add more sources as reference but want to make sure the above is cleared out before i get unintentionally caught in an edit war


Thanks in advance 173.95.213.230 (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only was it considered vandalism before, some of the edits by that same editor were so inappropriate that they were not just reverted but deleted from this page's history altogether. Given the history of vandalism on this page, if you add it back, you risk a block for vandalism as well. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, some other edits by that editor were vandalism i agree. That one was not since the account was banned for sockpuppetry, notthinh was said about that edit
There have been recent edits in the past year by other people that were vandalism as well on this page i saw.
But that does not mean everything is vandalism.
As long as the rules of wikipedia are followed, an addition that is fine on other wikipedia pages should be fine here as well.
It is why i am asking for the opinions of uninvolved editors, since i can understand that having had to protect and deal with occassional vandalism on a page you created can make it harder to see changes on it 173.95.213.230 (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I'm from WP:3O. I've looked over the discussion here and the edit. I think an easier resolution than parsing out whether this banned editor was always committing vandalism or not is to address the current edit's warrant for inclusion.
My take is that it doesn't meet WP:DUE standards. It is, at most, tenuously linked to her. The first is a link to her X post, which is WP:PRIMARY, and not a good secondary source for the statement that there was a controversy about her. The second addition is the only one that is appropriate per WP:SECONDARY, but even there, she is only part of a campaign that received some criticism, she didn't receive the criticism herself. Finally, the third addition seems to be a WP:SYNTH attempt to wrap her into a larger controversy that she doesn't seem to be playing any major part in.
So as a summary, we can't use primary sources to establish whether these controversies are DUE, and we need to be very careful on a BLP page using SYNTH since that makes Wikipedia the author of the statement rather than a credible secondary source.
Squatch347 (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time and input.
Will rewrite the edit for the first 2 statements. By not adding it under a seperate controversy section, making it clear that she was only part of the stream and leaving the 3rd statement out. 173.95.213.230 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "queerbaiting" reference cannot be included unless there is a WP:RSP secondary source discussing it. Simply referencing her X post is inappropriate.
For the ELF stream, we have a valid secondary source, but it doesn't appear to be WP:DUE. What is the argument for including it? Why is it relevant to her page? It doesn't seem to be a big part of her streaming career and neither source spends much time talking about the streamers, but talks about ELF. Squatch347 (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2025

[edit]
GreerJahleal (talk) 06:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC) Hello I Want to Edit Loserfruit to Update One Her YouTube Subscribers and Twitch Followers[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]