Talk:Fred Gallagher
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Webcomics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to webcomics on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Fred Gallagher, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
Is "Carlson" a typo which should be "Caston"? --Salagadoola 00:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Where you find that? --Kiba 00:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Would it perhaps be more useful to merge and redirect this to Megatokyo? It's less useful out of context. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 20:48, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] POV concern
i have never read such a negative article on wikipedia before. some one should really rewrite it. bashing the looks of his wife is way too low. /Jonatan
- This article look too negative. I am not going to get myself into an edit war. I did revert once. In my opinon, this article is POV, and plus it already covered in Megatokyo too. --Kiba 18:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- This article is rewritten. I'll remove the NPOV template tag. --Kiba 20:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Age
Extract from Megatokyo website:
Thursday - November 7, 2002 [Piro] - 12:50:00
[...] This sorta gives away how old i am (33)[...]
Thus, I hazard a guess that Fred is now 36. I will risk adding "born 1969" to the article.
[edit] Warmth - More Recent?
I may be wrong, but I thought that he started developing Warmth before Megatokyo, yet the article refers to it as more recent. (No, I won't be bold.) --TCM (Talk) 04:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- Allright, I found a quote from one of his rants to support my position.
- I've been teasing people with another project I started years ago called 'warmth' ever since Megatokyo started. In fact, I never planned to do Megatokyo, it just sorta came in and took over my life before I knew what happened. 'Warmth' was the comic/story/project I was working on at the time. Honestly, I didn't have the drawing skillz at the time to do the project - and that's part of why i decided to do Megatokyo - i needed practice, and Megatokyo was a better medium to practice with.
- I'll go change it in some way or another. --TCM (Talk) 04:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction
I took out the bit about fans calling him a manga-ka and such. A petty disagreement (if that) is not necessary in an introduction. ~~cosmogee
[edit] Wife's name
There's some inconsistancy in the spelling of Mr. Gallagher's wife's name. Is it "Sarah" or "Sara?"
- In this comic's (798's) discussion thread on the megatokyo forums, he spells it Sarah. See here. Tigger89 03:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] History
Should the current rumors (I've seen pictures but no actual proof they're Fred's) that he did some Nude Ruri at some point in the past be included? humblefool®Deletion Reform 03:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Checking archive.org records of megatokyo.com suggests that nude Ruri was hosted there at one point or another, and a major feature of the site. There was also a 18+ section, blurred.megatokyo.com. However, no pictures exist of this, and there's no conformation that Fred did these because Rodney Caston still owned the domain at this point. All the pictures on 4chan are fake, unless there have been some sudden new ones. It's not hard to compare the fakes to Fred's art style. For now, I wouldn't add anything until concrete proof comes out. --Breathstealer 15:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- The "Naked Ruri-Ruri" quotes on archive.org are references to a Slashdot style troll inspired by the Natalie Portman naked and petrified thing. And there's no real evidence that Blurred was, as is currently described in the article "lolicon yuri." -- Anonymous
- While blurred does include a topless picture of "Ruri", it's certainly not 'lolicon yuri doujinshi'. Most of the recent vandalism by 67.173.123.119 is unverifiable and also intentionally aimed at corroborating false statements currently popular on 4chan's /b/ random board. --Cortana 07:12 22 February 2006 (EST)
-
- Hay Cort~ While the vandalism is unverifiable, is there any chance at finding out the contents of blurred? --Breathstealer 16:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, I do have access to the files, but Fred doesn't want them public. The description that I wrote for it is a pretty good abstract of it. Cortana 17:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- User 67.173.123.119 here, and I'd like to say that what I peiced togther information I collectedand since offical sources from Megatokyo and Gallagher's staff (Looking at you Cortana) refused to comment on the matter. I can see why you claim it's vanadlism, It seems logical just to just publish them in an edited format and let it rest. Most users on 4chan /b/ have ADD so they'll go back to hating something else soon afterwards so why not just post them? 1:05, 24 February 2006 (CST)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'd like to add, while trying to get to the bottom of this. Arguing about something that cannot be proven is pointless and this is the worst wikipedia article yet because of it. Though, I'd like to point out something, a topless picture of 'Ruri' whoever that is wouldn't qualify as doujinshi and if it a simple topless picture, it could not be yuri either. So as far as I know its most likely just lolicon. So for this user, this is as good as any conformation of past pedophilia!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- So tell me Ashibaka, what's your source for anything that you've written about Blurred? Since nothing can be verified about Blurred where do you get off writing anything at all? You have no evidence that it even existSteel Rain 02:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Plenty of information can be found by checking the web archive and Google cache for omoikane.net and running it through the Wayback Machine. Two of the offending images can be viewed there. Thus, confirmation of the existence of Blurred and "slightly salacious" images. 216.203.80.125 21:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Ignoring wayward vandals from what you assume to be 4chan, let this speak as the voice of argument and reason for all of the loving folks at /b/ who poured their tired efforts into compiling this - frankly, Cortana's little snippet didn't really tell the tale adequately or.. coherently. Check OUR facts here (http://rapidshare.de/files/19997019/Blurred_Exposed.zip.html) and here (http://fregal10.hollosite.com/) before you write anymore about Blurred. If you think presenting facts and rational argument equals us vandalizing and harassing, you might want to know that not everyone in /b/ is a bloody retard. We just wanted the truth that you wouldn't provide.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- There no more debate. With June 8 blog (http://www.megatokyo.com/index.php?strip_id=866) and the addition of (http://www.fredart.com/blurred/) I think Blurred's place is now justified as a now 'legitimate' project now that Fred is not denying it anymore. Props to the unforgiving and unforgetting Anonymous though a bit hard handed in getting it out at least its out for everyone to see. I don't think it would have come out without you. I finnaly got to see this Blurred... Really is nothing he should been ashamed of. /me shrugs
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
On another note. Is that blurred screenshot really neccisary? Now that might be a bit uncalled for Ariolander 07:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it's probably among the things which caused him to change his mind about whether to post the images on his website (see "Fred doesn't want them public", above). Ashibaka tock 21:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- The current one added by CopyandPasta is probably not the one that should be shown, if any, considering the exposed breasts in it. Also, the unsourced and false accusations of legal threats are not acceptable, as far as I see it. I'll try to keep it cleaned up, but CopyAndPasta seems intent on making sure it stays in that form.Cortana 23:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I object to the phrasing "It appears that their calculated attempt to discredit and embarrass Gallagher failed." This was obviously written by someone who supported MT during the conflict and is an opinionated jab at /b/. If anything, /b/ "won" the battle in that they got Fred to admit to Blurred. However, since it is a controversial topic, I suggest that it be changed to something like "In response to harassment from these /b/ users, Fred made the Blurred website public again..." -Anonymous
[edit] Protection notice
Because the Blurred section continues to violate WP:LIVING, I am locking down the article for now. This is an article about a living person, so it is unacceptable to make negative statements without proper sourcing. Internet forums do not count as reliable sources. The Blurred Exposed site does not count as a reliable source. We don't do "investigative journalism" or whatever you want to call it. It specifically violates our original research policies. Using charged words like I found in the section also violates WP:NPOV. Please, hammer out your disagreements here, and when you come up with something that's in compliance with our policies, let me know and I will unlock the article. However, if the WP:LIVING violations appear again, I may be forced to block those responsible. I'm sorry to be heavy-handed about this, but this policy is non-negotiable. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- "We" did not do the original research - I certainly wasn't involved. The fact is, however, that the research WAS done, and that it, and/or the reaction to it, led Fred Galalgher to publicly admit that Blurred had once existed and that the contents as the research uncovered were 100% accurate. In fact, Fred has even put the entire site back online (see http://www.fredart.com/blurred/) with a new introduction. I don't see a problem with the article as it currently stands. My last revision has a bit of history behind the actual research, but I didn't post links, so they were killed for unsourced statement (fair enough) and I didn't care enough to go back and repost with sources - I'd rather work on actual anime articles. Snarfies 13:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have removed some commentary from that section that sounded a bit too much like gloating from the pro-Gallagher side. However, I also had to remove the link to "Blurred: Exposed"; it doesn't meet our standards as a reliable source. The section still needs sourcing, but then so does the whole article. However, in terms of content, I tried to move it back toward the neutral point of view. If this works, I'll unlock it. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- True enough, those were my words, and admittedly they were probably a bit biased from my close relationship with the subject of the article and from talking with him. My main point was to get the negative stuff out as well as the 4chan gloating bits and false accusations of legal threats removed. To point, Fred has never denied that blurred existed, and really is quite proud of it as a collection of his early works. He's also never made any legal threats to 4chan or anywhere else about them having the images, this was just conspiracy theorizing by the 4chan /b/ crew because of some coincidences with down time on 4chan and the fast rollover of posts on the /b/ board. Cortana 01:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have removed some commentary from that section that sounded a bit too much like gloating from the pro-Gallagher side. However, I also had to remove the link to "Blurred: Exposed"; it doesn't meet our standards as a reliable source. The section still needs sourcing, but then so does the whole article. However, in terms of content, I tried to move it back toward the neutral point of view. If this works, I'll unlock it. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Im sorry if Im so oblivious. But can you copy/paste some of the edits (copy/paste them here) that you deem controversial (or whatever). -- Psi edit 19:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Basically it accused Gallagher of drawing Lolicon (To 4chan, everything below DD is loli) and had a different, nudity-containing pic. Also some very 4Chan-serving language ("collaberative reasearch project headed by 4chan members" is an oxymoron). Nifboy 19:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid copying and pasting it here isn't an option because that too would violate WP:LIVING. The article's history should give you some clues, though, especially those changes in the "Blurred" section. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 19:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have unprotected the article. We'll see how it goes. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] IGN interview
Here is an interview he recently did with IGN: http://comics.ign.com/articles/713/713708p1.html
And fully cited: Sparrow, A.E. (2006-06-21). Take a Trip to Megatokyo. IGN. Retrieved on 2006-06-23.
[edit] Fine Red Cat
The reference link for this doesn't work (anymore?). --Masamage 01:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- It works fine for me. Hargle 00:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Oh, there it is. Must've been temporarily down. Thanks~ --Masamage 00:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blurred
I think this section is way too prominent. I haven't explored other 'semi-erotic' articles on Wikipedia, but I'm sort of uncomfortable with the presence of a panty shot in an encyclopedia.
I also think that this one little twiddle he did once should not be the only example present of his art, especially since the only reason he revealed it was that he was bullied. If no one objects, I'd like to remove it and add some art from MT or Fredart instead. --Masamage 01:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I wholeheartedly agree, and I'll ask Fred what art he finds most representative, if the consensus agrees. Otherwise, let me know what you find / choose to use, and I'll get permission for wikipedia to display it. Cortana 07:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, hi. ^_^ I don't know if Fred is allowed to contribute to this article, since it's about him; getting his copyright-permission for whatever we pick would be awesome, though! I haven't taken a look yet to see what might go up as representative. Guess I will... Other thoughts are welcome! --Masamage 18:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I do agree that potentially objectionable content should be avoided if possible, but remember that Wikipedia is not censored, so don't sweat it if the only image available for illustration of a certain section or article is possibly offensive. Also, I have looked through the rest of the Blurred images, and, in my opinion, the one that is currently being used is easily the least offensive of the lot, so I don't think changing it would do any good. Providing the other sections with images (a lead image of Fred himself? Book covers for The Fine Red Cat and Megatokyo?) would also significantly decrease the prominence of that section, it currently sticks out from the others so much because it is the only one with any kind of illustration, and a fairly large illustration, at that. Hargle 14:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, hi. ^_^ I don't know if Fred is allowed to contribute to this article, since it's about him; getting his copyright-permission for whatever we pick would be awesome, though! I haven't taken a look yet to see what might go up as representative. Guess I will... Other thoughts are welcome! --Masamage 18:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree, and I'll ask Fred what art he finds most representative, if the consensus agrees. Otherwise, let me know what you find / choose to use, and I'll get permission for wikipedia to display it. Cortana 07:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
