Talk:David Thorne (writer)

Bio debate

This reads like a bio written by the author himself. "It is this sense of normality that has made him one of the most interesting and exciting writers on the internet today." That's hardly unbiased. Needs clean up.

Have you ever red something by him? Definitly do that, and you'd be writing the same thing. I'll drop you an example http://www.27bslash6.com/strata.html

Beside this, of course something, somewhere should be rewritten in a more neutral and professional way, as personal judgements are not welcome on a encyclopedia. 93.32.33.164 (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement mentioned before is definitely biased self-praising. No one could possibly praise that pet-article you posted as being funny "normality" (fabricated events lose their flavor with their loss of subtlety). The article needs some clean up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.22.220 (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Simon Dempsey (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC) This article needs to be locked. There are too many people, one troll in particular, adding personal comments of a degrading nature based purely on the fact they dislike the person highlighted. While I did not create this article, I have edited it without any bias towards the subject. David Thorne is certainly an interesting character that has caused some ruckus on the internet of late but this article needs to remain fact based without slander or personal attacks on him.

I'm sorry, but to claim that you have edited without bias is laughable. You have admitted having a personal relationship with the subject, and you have repeatedly removed any edit that attempts to offer some balance to the article. The recent edits may not have been constructively carried out, however sources were provided, were factual, and in my opinion offered some much needed balance. I intend to restore much of the recently removed material and I hope to do so without being reported for vandalism as you did to one user. Thedarxide (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

@Thedarxide You say "balance" and that the "sources were factual" LOL!! The (now deleted) text read as a personal attack and the source linked to a wired article that had nothing to do with the article. How is that factual and without bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.231.88.204 (talk) 07:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the quotes from Marketing Mag. Thedarxide (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The content added was biased. Obviously by a disgruntled 27bslash6 reader. I do not have a personal relationship with the subject. That is a ridiculous comment. The text that was added: "Thorne's humor is autobiographical and cynical, expressing self-complacency and egotism. His writing is self-centered, narcissistic and focuses on deprecating and mocking other people, often his immediate family, work associates and customers." is pure bias and opinion. Just because you share the same tall poppy syndrome does not make it factual or relative content to be included. Simon Dempsey (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"I do not have a personal relationship with the subject. That is a ridiculous comment." - you stated on my talk page that you work with David Thorne. Thedarxide (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no personal relationship, as you put it, with David Thorne. I do know him through a work connection but we have never met. Adelaide is small enough that anybody in the same industry has a connection. I do not see how this is pertinent or makes me unbias apart from the fact that I do actually like what he writes and we are from the same city and industry. I have worked on a project with Thorne in the past but so did two thousand other people and it had nothing to do with writing or his website. He is a designer director by trade for an Adelaide agency which I have done contract work for. How does this make that a personal relationship? We do not cuddle. Simon Dempsey (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

So now you've never met, but you claim to own the copyright to this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:David_Thorne_27bslash6_photo.jpg? Thedarxide (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That image comes from his website and is in the public domain. A bot deleted the image so I uploaded it. Sue me. http://www.27bslash6.com/dt.html Simon Dempsey (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

I have decided to re-protect this page given the resumption of the edit-war. Please discuss the merits of the disputed content on this page instead of in revert summaries. Further edit-warring will result in blocks for those responsible.  Skomorokh  02:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Content be deleted

The article (now locked) contains a line of text by a troll that links to a reference that has nothing to do with either David Thorne or the article regarding 27bslash6. The link is about a girl who became famous on the internet. The girl has nothing to do with 27bslash6 or David Thorne and is a *ridiculous addition* to the article. The user (203.45.210.58) seems to be using the article as a personal vendetta. It seems likely for having a comment deleted from the 27bslash6 webpage in question. I request the content "Comments can be left on the website, although it has been reported that notoriously David Thorne erases or modifies any remarks that criticize, mock or minimize the quality of his work. [9]" to be removed by administration. The text does not add to the article, is the users personal opinion, and has a reference that has nothing to do with the subject. Simon Dempsey (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Verifying the reference now, will remove unless it checks out.  Skomorokh  03:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference is to "Wired Magazine. 16.08. Internet Famous: Julia Allison and the Secrets of Self-Promotion", a copy of which here does not seem to mention Thorne of the website. If I am wrong, please point out where; until then I am removing the claim per the biographies of living persons policy.  Skomorokh  03:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the comment being deleted from your website. But seeing as you just admitted you delete comments I guess it wasn't a "ridiculous addition". Also, I didn't make that addition, I just reverted it when you deleted it. Anyway, it's your Wikipedia article so do what you like - I'm out. Cheers

I admitted I delete comments? I have nothing to do with the 27bslash6 website. I was stating that it is obvious your comments were based on you having comment deleted from that website and using this as your soap box. I assume by some of your comments you are insinuating that I am either the original creator of this page or David Thorne himself. In both cases you are incorrect.Simon Dempsey (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have nothing to do with the website how did you know that: a) I posted a comment on it, b) the comment was deleted and c) matched the IP address from the website to the one used here? Seems rather odd that someone with nothing to do with the website would know all of this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.14.29 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Your IP address shows up here as you are not registered. I simply assumed by the context of your added text (stating that David Thorne deleted comments from his website etc) that this is what has happened. It is hardly rocket science to work that out. You obviously left a comment which was deleted for whatever reason and came here to vent your anger. This was obvious from your text. It has nothing to do with IP addresses. Read my comments in context. Simon Dempsey (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, who cares? If I was David Thorne and had a website as successful as his has become and someone left a comment that was attacking or whatever, I would delete it to. I assume almost every webmater does. Am I missing the point here? I do not know the whole background story but the context is obvious. What was the comment that he deleted that got you so upset? Simon Dempsey (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record I didn't add anything to the article, I just reverted your edits that seemed to be heading towards making this a David Thorne circle-jerk, although, in hindsight it could and should have been done more constructively... apologies from me. The only reason I left a comment on his website, to be honest, was because I read here that he does edit and delete comments that aren't praising him. sure enough the comment was deleted. I don't really have a problem with David, the emails and articles on the website are very funny and original, but lets face it... "Thorne's humor is autobiographical and cynical, expressing self-complacency and egotism. His writing is self-centered, narcissistic and focuses on |deprecating and mocking other people, often his immediate family, work associates and customers." Anyway, as I said before I'm over it, after all.. "The internet is a playground." Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.14.29 (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

How exactly can something be both described as self deprecating and narcissistic? It is a conflicting description. Define which areas of his writing you see as narcissistic or do you just see the fact he has a website as narcissistic? Would this not apply to every blog on the internet? Should we change every article on wikipedia to include the text "this person writes, therefore is narcissistic"? Nonce. Simon Dempsey (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how anything (or is that anyone?) can be described as "self deprecating". The term seems to be nonsense. Perhaps they mean "self depreciating". Crafty (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Self deprecating is the correct terminology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deprecation Simon Dempsey (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Feh! I hardly think Wikipedia qualifies as a reliable reference. Crafty (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

interwiki

i removed it twice before and now it's in the article again so bots keep adding them in other wikis, too... all interwiki links do not exist or are wrong. de:Daviod Thorne is not not the same person as the one here. so please delete all interwikis again. --JD {æ} 21:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Site gone?

It seems that his site has either gone to Ethernet heaven or moved to another URL. Anyone have the answer? RoyBatty42 (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's back up now, which is why I removed the fact from the article. Temporary blips in hosting are not newsworthy Thedarxide (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Birthdate Changes by vandal

Have checked references to Thorne's birthdate and he was born February 13 1972 in Geraldton Western Australia. First child of 2 (one sister) to Welsh immigrant parents. Vandal 122.109.175.54 is changing dates for unknown reason. Suggest warn/ban. Singularityfield (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for these references? LinkedIn is a primary source and so isn't acceptable. A Google search seems to show a wider argument by individuals that Thorne's year of birth is 1968, and without a good source for either I'd strike it completely from the article. Rather than reporting users for vandalism, how about you back up your assertions? Thedarxide (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Will find the source again and reference it. One of the first links I just clicked on lists his age as 37 and this news article is from 2009 which correlates: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/Talker/2009/06/18/9855281-sun.html (about half way down). Singularityfield (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of the term "self-deprecating"

This word you use, I do not think it means what you think it means. He is a gifted writer, satirist, etc. etc. but it's clear from pretty much everything he writes, that humble he is not. --144.191.148.3 (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Gnillort

I am surprised that no one has noted that Gnillort (the girl's last name) is simply "trolling" spelled backward. Not sure where he got "Tabitha," but the last name is clearly part of the prank! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.236.15 (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Tabitha Gnillort... I can't seem to find anywhere the identity of this person. Is it just Thorne dressed up like a woman, to troll us with a trap? Some articles on the site seem to imply it, and the two are very facially similar, and I do suspect it quite a bit, but I'm not 100% sure and would rather not assume.

It was mentioned in an interview somewhere that it is an anagram of Trolling Habitat. I think it is a girl at least I hope so.

The girl in the photos is model and graphic designer Darja Tokranova from Estonia. http://deedl.livejournal.com/ http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-568395.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.27.168.41 (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Orwell claim

That's got to be a load of old bollocks, hasn't it? Surely Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four at Barnhill on Jura? 86.24.51.29 (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Between 1946 and the release of the book in 1949, he spent time between Barnhill and London. Due to illness I think. I know he finished the book at Barnhill but Orwell's address in London - where he would have written part of the book - was Apartment 6, 27B Canonbury Square, Islington London N. 1 Talksoup (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else notice the parking violation Rose and Finn are charged with in The Last Jedi is also twenty-seven B stroke six? 60.42.2.184 (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

In Terry Gilliam's Brazil, Form 27B-6 is a plot device, possibly based on Orwell's address. I suspect (given the content and style of Thorne's writing) that the reference to Orwell is via Gilliam. Actually I just did some interneting and I'm going to change the article and add a reference Bendav (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Didn't know Adelaide had been moved to the US.

Somebody might like to update his current place of residence; it's pretty clear from his last post that it isn't Adelaide anymore. 122.104.162.243 (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

How can one know what is real?

I have seen webpages challenging the authenticity of David’s e-mail exchanges. Are there any third-party sources indicating they are in fact real? Sam Hocevar (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, we don't. The article makes no claim about the authenticity of his writing, and no reliable source really makes a case for either side so there's not much to say about it. --Zarel (talk⋅c) 05:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

“27b/6 features a collection of humorous emails and articles from Thorne's own life.” sounds like such a claim to me. Sam Hocevar (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The opinions of certain people are not relevant to this article. Thorne's book has made the NYT Best-seller list for non-fiction and he has stated in several interviews that the emails are true. Most recently in The Washington Post: http://live.washingtonpost.com/david-thorne-internet-is-a-playground.html Reddit is not classed as a reliable source. Neither are blogs based on opinion. Please source your information from reliable references in future and stop wasting everyone's time or you will be reported for vandalism. Talination (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The same article states that “cat owners are insane”, that e-mail is a fad that will wear out within six months, and that the book comes “with a free telescope”. As a pretty offended multiple cat owner, I am afraid that until I get my telescope there is no way the material in there can be trusted. Also, I believe you lie and I don’t think I will be reported for vandalism. Sam Hocevar (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

True, Thorne has used comedy in addition to statements in that particular interview. As he is a satirist, that is to be expected. I own cats as well, two, but I wasn't offended by his stuff and even if I was I wouldn't add my opinion to what is meant to be referenced material. I get what you are saying and the guy does exagerate but the links you were adding were not reliable sources. Anyone can google the email names he has used and see that Thorne is a designer and has worked with the people named in the emails. The piechart one drew legal threats from the man involved. Thorne mentioned in another interview that he get to written permission from the people involved prior to publishing with Penguin Group and had to change the names and photo when this permission wasn't granted. If you look at the site you will see several of the photos have been changed. The fact the the book made the NYT Best-seller list under the field "Non-Fiction" and the text by Thorne in the intro of the book points to your answer. And the book does come with a free telescope, it's printed on the inside flap with the words "This page, when rolled into a tube makes a telescope with 1:1 ratio". And you are right, I probably wont report you for vandalism as I see your point, I just don't think Wikipedia is the place for opinions. Talination (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying everything is fiction. Though it shouldn't be relevant to the discussion I believe at this point I should point out that I enjoy what David writes and I own both versions of the The Internet is a Playground book. I myself enjoy answering idiotically to recruiters, spammers or generally annoying people, so I know for a fact that some idiots are too unpredictably idiotic that their answers cannot be faked.

However, on pages 284 and 285 of the extended version of the book there are images of people who reportedly drew stuff on their bellies as a result of David posing as a woman on the Internet. But at least two of the images were manually doctored: one from a now dead person’s blog and another from a “hottest boys on the web” blog (warning: penises). This obvious fabrication makes me wonder what is fake and what is not and I’d be interested in an exhaustive list. Until then I can only be suspicious. Sam Hocevar (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the Wikipedia page is not about opinions but 'reference-able' material. It's possible that some of the articles are doctored. I couldn't find that article on Thorne's website but it is in the book. It's also possible that Thorne had to replace images for legal reasons (like he had to with the Penguin release of the book) but this is just speculation... which is my point. There is more evidence and trails and interviews that state the email correspondences are real but how this can be proven one way or the other in regards to the self contained articles, I have no idea. Talination (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The article appears to have disappeared from David’s website, but the images I mentioned above are still here and here (also available on Google Images).

I am curious as to what kind of “legal reasons” could in your opinion force someone to use a dead person’s photo and pretend they fell for an online troll. Sam Hocevar (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say that Thorne can do what he wants to a degree on his website but Penguin is the largest publisher in the world so they would have made him alter the pics. Looking at the article in the book, page 283, none of the faces are shown. Also, I just noticed, the second persons name is Scott Mintred. This whole article was probably just to annoy Mintred or something so I wouldn't put too much thought into it. There is an article about a guy who collects dolphin figurines but I bet he doesn't reall and in another article, Thorne is interviewed about his space mission. I doubt Thorne has ever been the flight commander aboard the shuttle. It is satire.Talination (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

"The email articles are verbatim although I do fix spelling errors, as is my prerogative, and bad grammar prior to posting. I also sometimes change the person's name or remove their second name, unless they have overly annoyed me, and there have been occassions when I have had to add context or delete non-contexual content such as footers. The non-email based articles feature people I know and are exagerated but based on actual events." David Thorne on The Morton Report. Singularityfield (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Carter Miller, the MPOA administrator, called the entire email exchange between Thorne and the MPOA employee a fictitious crock. 'Every bit of that was fabricated,' Miller said. Thorne denied that either the Function 4 or Massanutten stories were entirely fabricated, but (again) admitted alteration. 'The primary function of what I write is, basically, to entertain.'"

^ So, an employee denies to their boss that they wrote something and it automatically "didn't happen?" Lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.12.196 (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

References

Puff piece

The size of the article grossly misrepresents the importance of the subject. PenguinUS have been undoing deletions, showing clearly they are using it as a marketing tool. Today's (1/20/2014) slimming down has simply removed everything non-significant or that directly references the subject's OWN web site, something specifically banned on Wikipedia beyond a single reference. What is left is a fair, actually rather large, representation of the subject's significance - he's written a couple of books and has a website that caused a bit of a stir. That's it! Hardly a historical figure or particularly newsworthy.

The achievements of the subject are such that the "noteworthiness" test is marginal at best. If PenguinUS continue to revert reasonable deletions then the article will be marked for deletion.

91.125.151.190 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The subject matter is notable. Thorne is a published author (New York Times bestseller in non-fiction), has a large fan base, and the content you removed - for whatever *personal* reasons - is of interest to many readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PenguinUS (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of David Thorne (writer)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on David Thorne (writer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. 91.125.151.190 (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No conflict of interest - I am only interested in keeping Wikipedia a credible source of notable information.

Pointless. The subject matter is notable. As for the content, well that's a different argument altogether. Mass deleting swaths of text is unlikely to lead to the result you're after. Please try to contribute constructively rather than just deleting masses of text and erroneously nominating this article for speedy deletion, for which it clearly doesn't qualify. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Autobiography / COI

Here is the description i gave for the tag:

Quite clearly written by the subject himself using various "personas" that he uses in his internet satire - for instance User:Simon Dempsey (who is in this [1])

--Kim D. Petersen 00:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree on the large. For sure, Thorne very well could have (and would have, most certainly, "knowing" him as I do) added some items or text to this page. I also agree that 27/b should not be the "source" in half of the references, I, personally, get too spun around following reference links en masse, but I don't see how any primary source materials would back up any of their claims, especially as they're all [largely?] fictional. That being said, his articles do go viral. Things that are as old as 7 years show up on some 3rd party site and suddenly everyone is sharing it as if it's brand new. I also recall seeing his work on one of the major late night talk show, I see that several are listed in the lede with CN tags, I forget which ones.

I think the hyperbole could be toned down and the references double-checked, but I don't think the whole article is COI or even influenced more than slightly by Thorne himself. JesseRafe (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Thorne (writer). 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/20120720033728/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=665808 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=665808

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Continued vandalism and unjustified removal of content

Like the removal of the personal life section. Seems to be happening a lot lately. 110.142.225.47 (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)