Talk:Destiny (streamer)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Start over

Much of this article has to go; there's too much gossip. It's very poorly sourced. I recommend a rewrite using these sources: [1] [2] [3]. I believe these make him pass WP:GNG and don't fall under WP:BLP1E. wumbolo ^^^ 21:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Which parts are too gossipy? Triggeredbytriggered (talk) 06:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Destiny streamer.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• UJauNk6.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikibox Photo

The current photo, along with several previous ones all appear to be copyrighted material being uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons by Orbwok. Other than this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Destiny_hangout_2019.jpg photo, is there anything else we can restore it to that doesn't look as poor quality? ~ AlbertOfPrussia ^talk 21:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: I sent an email to Steven Bonnell II and asked if he would be able to upload an image under a Creative Commons license to Wikimedia which he has done here. I have since added it to the wikibox photo as the current photo is likely to be deleted imminently as it was uploaded without the consent of the author. ~ AlbertOfPrussia ^talk 00:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

removal of content

I've removed unsourced and self-sourced content. Please do not re-add without including a reliable independent source; instead, start a discussion here. —valereee (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Valereee. I believe you may have removed some content in error. A WP:SELFSOURCE can be used for uncontroversial personal information. For example, you removed information about Bonell's first streaming job at Justin.tv which cited his blog. You also removed information about his early career which cited his YouTube video.

When you have a moment, please restore any content that was removed but was properly cited to a self-source. As a reminder, here are the criteria for when self-sources may be used:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

– Anne drew 14:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Anne drew Andrew and Drew, if no one has ever mentioned that he started at Justin.tv but him, then the information probably isn't important to understanding the subject. If he's the only one talking about it, we shouldn't be including it. If literally no reliable source thinks it's worth mentioning, it probably isn't. The article was primarily content sourced to links to his own videos. —valereee (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you really believe information about a twitch streamer's early streaming career is unimportant? I disagree with that.

If literally no reliable source thinks it's worth mentioning, it probably isn't.

If that was an actual an Wikipedia policy and not just your personal opinion, self sources wouldn't be allowed at all. Self sources are permitted because sometimes there is important information that isn't mentioned by third-party sources. – Anne drew 20:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to adding back the first streaming job, as that falls in the same place as dob, place of birth, education details. But "any content that was removed but was properly cited to a self-source" -- we'd have to go through each item, I think. —valereee (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restored some of the content that was verified with self-sources. I restored and updated the Twitch follower and view stats as well. Please take a moment to review my changes and let me know if you have any concerns. – Anne drew 16:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I had removed the liquipedia source because I couldn't find where it said he came in fourth? We definitely cannot source 'he's been credited with turning people blah blah' to his blog, and other source for that is a broken link? Twitch follower and view stats at minimum need a source, and preferably some sort of context to show whether those stats are even meaningful, like his social blade ranking. —valereee (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

*Are we sure this guy's even notable? I'm not seeing anything in the sources that would represent significant coverage, more just mentions? Has he been profiled anywhere? —valereee (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Wired source does it. —valereee (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Gene Pool

Minor note but I don't think Jontron expressed concerns about Mexicans entering the "genepool." He mentioned it in the context of assimilation, as a "positive" thing for lack of a better adjective. He did make a weird statement that went something like: "Then why are the crime rates for blacks similar across Africa as well?" and when he was asked why he thought black people commit more crime in the US he didn't want to answer and said something like "Now you're trying to get me" and "I don't want to get into it because it's a raunchy topic". I think mentioning that is more important than mentioning the gene pool comment. Is this what the talk page is for? I always feel weird creating new sections on talk pages. Dapperedavid (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it is better to include the gene pool comment as it shows the kinds of ideas he was arguing much more succinctly. While I personally would agree it's true that the Africa comment basically proves without a doubt that he's racist or at least that the ideas he was arguing have racist foundations and conclusions, it's takes several logical steps to get to that point, and I don't think it really makes sense to go into that much detail. The article would have to say something like "He drew comparisons between the crime rates in Africa and those of black people in the US. Given the fact that the only connection between these two groups is their race, he must have been arguing that race determines disposition to crime." It wouldn't really fit IMO. Also yes, you are using the talk page correctly. Finnigami (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Extreme bias in section talking about “mowing down” protestors

It reads as if Bonnell actively called for violence against protestors, when that absolutely was not the case. This reads as being written by someone who dislikes Bonnell and wants to take a quote out of context to make him look bad. Georgariou (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the section, as it was also added without a source. Anything added to the page should have a source and be relevant to the section it is being added to. (Bonnell has people who do not like him all over the Internet — this page is very vulnerable to vandalism) Georgariou (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to make this section more accurate, an added an additional source which includes the clip itself. Finnigami (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Also even the source doesn't say "BLM protesters". Gannicus123 (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

December 26 2020 Rewrite

This page was solidly sourced and mostly factually accurate, but horrendously written and full of information that does not meet Wikipedia's basic notability guidelines. I've done a complete re-write of the entire page to make it properly readable, and I've also removed all material that has not received significant coverage and all references to persons who have not received significant coverage, while adding material that has. I also read through and double-checked all the sources to ensure this article is properly referenced, plus I ensured the article obeys the neutrality standards of an encyclopedia. As for the Kyle Rittenhouse comments, I've included a (nearly) complete quotation because each source that mentions the incident does, and I believe it is necessary context. In addition, any attempt to summarize his statements so far seems to sound biased in favor of or against Bonnell, so I believe including the remarks as well as Twitch's stated reasons for termination will suffice. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This new rewrite looks great. I would also mention in the political views section that Bonnell has self-identified as a social Democrat, and that in terms of American politics he would consider himself far-left (as opposed to online politics). When introducing himself to a new group, he describes him as “a social democrat if you ask people on the right, a neoliberal if you ask people on the left. Yeah, I live somewhere in there. Pretty far left in terms of social and economic issues”. At 1:57:53 in the same video, he addresses people who don’t consider him left-leaning, saying he completely disagrees and that it’s “stupid” to think he isn’t far left in American politics. This is just one of many videos of him describing as far left in American politics, and defending those viewpoints, while still being pro-capitalism. I think focusing on the single quote where it seems to imply he pretends to be farther left than he is is not representative of his political views. Georgariou (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

That one sentence you singled out was actually a later edit not written by me. I've reverted that addition and re-instated where I quote Bonnell as calling himself a social democrat, because I agree, it's pretty integral to understanding his views. I think citing that he is a social democrat is necessary, but anything having to do with whether he's considered far-left in America is not. Thank you for the positive feedback on the rewrite and be on the look out for any more edits from others. Given the quality of many of the changes over the last few weeks I might suggest upping the protection on this page. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thevoidzz:, please stop changing Bonnell's birth date unless you have a source. Also, please do not add information that has not been coverted by secondary sources or is uncontroversial common knowledge. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Leopard of the Snows:I have not added any information for which I do not possess direct and explicit sources on the matter, something which can be readily verified by looking the references thereby provided. Maybe you could be more specific so I can tell exactly what you mean. About the birth date, I'll look Up some sources on it. Good day Thevoidzz (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

As Bonnell is an incredibly controversial figure online, his page seems to constantly have subpar edits that reek of bias in favor of or against him. If it’s possible to up the protection on this page I’d probably recommend it. Georgariou (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Georgariu: You wrote that : "I think focusing on the single quote where it seems to imply he pretends to be farther left than he is is not representative of his political views". You give no reason as to why this is "not representative of his political views", which is strange because the quote is from Bonnell himself, so what exactly is this quote lacking for it to be "representative of his political views"? Also, the quote does not "seem to imply" anything, it is rather a straightforward explicit admission of his views and portrayal of his views. I fail to understand why this only "seems to imply", rather than confirm or unequivocally state what he thinks on the subject. Please clarify. Be well.

@Thevoidzz: I actually didn't write that (the user @Georgariou: signed that comment at the end of their paragraph). However, I'm happy to address your concern. It's important to remember that not everything a person has ever said is indicative of their broader views, nor are individual statements by the person necessarily worth including on their Wikipedia page. A Wikipedia page is supposed to be a repository of notable information about a notable subject; if no secondary sources have mentioned something, that's a first sign that it may not be suitable for Wikipedia. In my and Georgariou's view, the quote you included (about Bonnell acting as if he is further left than he is) is simply not important for understanding him as a subject. I have included published secondary sources about how others perceive him and about how Bonnell perceives himself. Something that is important is that he is well-known for advocating social democratic politics, so I have re-instated that sentence fragment in the introduction. I've left in his self-identification as a "classical liberal" in because you provided a source and I think that his staunch support for capitalism is important for understanding Bonnell's political views. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Leopard of the Snows: Hello, sorry for the mix up. Anyways, you did not address a single of the points I raised, but ok. 1)Please tell me why some of the references included which are not a secondary source but rather youtube videos from Bonnell himself, do meet your criteria, but the quote I put in the text does not. 2) Exactly which is your criteria for what is "important to understand him as a subject"?, 3) How could a direct quote from the person himself not be "important to understand him as a subject"?

@Thevoidzz: I will try to be more clear. For your first and third questions, again, just because a person said something doesn't mean it needs to be included in an encyclopedia article about them. The issue was not that you were using a primary source to cite his political views, it's that you were trying to include something which no secondary sources have deemed important and which the current consensus of this page deems unimportant for understanding Bonnell as a subject. If Bonnell's political positions have received significant coverage, then detailing those positions in a dedicated section with primary sources may be acceptable. In addition, understanding Bonnell's political stances is clearly important, as he is an active and notable political commentator, but understanding that he presents himself as more left-wing to attract a certain audience is not. In addition, quotations should be used sparingly, and only where wholly necessary, such as in the Rittenhouse comments, where any summary would seem biased. As for your second question, please start with Wikipedia:Notability and Help:Your first article. These are not my criteria, but the criteria of an encyclopedia, which is a specific type of knowledge resource. Also, when using talk pages on Wikipedia, please sign your comments with four tildes (~), so your Wikipedia signature will appear like this: Leopard of the Snows (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

As a follow up — if we could take any quote from any of Bonnell’s hundreds of hours of YouTube’s videos, we could paint him as a staunch socialist, a far-right extremist, and anywhere in between. Just because we can does not mean it’s relevant, nor does it make it true. The goal of Wikipedia isn’t to compile all of his quotes, the goal is to portray what is relevant about the individual being written about. One off-hand quote where Bonnell says he attempts to appeal to people farther left than he is is probably not important enough to include in an encyclopedia article about him. The views in this article should be representative of his entire body of work. What I (and others editing this article) have chosen to include are what are important to understand Bonnell and what other secondary sources have reported on him. Him stating he attempts to appeal to an audience more left-leaning than he is does not fall under this. (Someone else correct me if I’m wrong here) Georgariou (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A note regarding recent and future edits

Hello, everyone. A few days ago I wrote a substantial re-write of this page because I found it to be of very poor quality. Since then I have noticed that as Bonnell is a controversial online figure, many of the edits to his page have been of poor quality. As a community, we have a responsibility to keep this page clear, accurate, and unbiased. I don't want to have to babysit this page, so here are some guidelines for considering whether your addition to this page is beneficial or detrimental:

1) Your additions must be sourced. If something in Bonnell's career or personal life hasn't been covered by secondary sources, then it is not worth adding to an encyclopedia article about him, period. (This applies to recent edits regarding Bonnell's coverage of Pokimane.)

2) If you wish to add to the political views section, primary sources may be acceptable, but please only edit this section if it is absolutely necessary for understanding Bonnell objectively as a subject, not so that the page is more favorable to him. Additions that are not indicative of his body of work will be reverted, and alterations made to correct descriptions of his positions will also be reverted. If you believe there is a mistake or a necessarily more accurate description of Bonnell's political views, please discuss any proposed changes here first so that we may reach a consensus. This includes recent changes such as to "transgender rights" to "LGBT rights," which is less specific, and "universal healthcare" to "public option," which is more specific but less accurate to Bonnell's body of work.

3) Please do not edit this page if you cannot write to the standard of an encyclopedia. Many recent edits have had extremely sloppy grammar and/or disorganized citations. Some have been extremely wordy. If you cannot write clearly and concisely about sourced information, do not edit this page. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thecornerwiki: I wanted to discuss why I reverted most of your recent edits (some of them for a second time). First, writing "a Liberal" is unclear and vague, as well as not a specific description of Bonnell's views compared with "hardcore capitalist and classical liberal," which are both things he's said about himself and specific and indicative of his broader views. On "universal healthcare," we are looking for a description of Bonnell's body of work, not a list of specific policy proposals. While it is true he is in favor of a public option, his work has generally been in favor of universal health coverage as a principle. I've kept in your addition of "fascism" under things he is against, although I noticed you removed the citations for these debates. I assume this was a mistake, but please do take greater care when editing Wikipedia not to erase the relevant work of others. In this same vein, please be conscious of your grammar when editing, especially of commas and capitalizations. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Open relationship

Multiple different users have edited the Personal Life section to specify that Bonnell is in an open relationship. I've undone these edits previously, but I'm going to leave them as of now, since 1) many different users seem to think it's relevant and necessary, and 2) I suppose it's more specific as well as well-known information. Open to other's input on this. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Leopard of the Snows: Strangely enough the fact that he is in an open relationship does end up being relevant to a lot of his Twitch and Youtube content (see 1 2 3, and tangentially in things like 4 and 5 for examples), so I think it should be included. (Also, I added a better source) Volteer1 (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• The citation that points to this youtube video supports the passage. At 5:45 into the video, Bonnell clearly states he is in an open relationship with his girlfriend. As to whether it's relevant or not; we state the relationship status of lots of BLPs on the project. Being in an open relationship is just one potential status of many. I don't think we shouldn't be mentioning it without some clear reason why it shouldn't be mentioned anymore than we mention relationship status (other than open) in other BLPs. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Steven "Destiny" bonnell.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Mark Gudgel

A recent edit added this quote from Mark Gudgel: "Bonnell’s incitement of violence runs contrary to everything I believe and have dedicated my career to as a public servant and educator over the past 17 years." Should we include this? I wonder if it's necessary context, and whether it's drawing attention away from Bonnell and onto Gudgel's response. For some context about my perspective, when I wrote the section on Bonnell's debate with Jon Jafari, I specifically did not include any direct quotes from Jafari because I felt it would have diverted attention from what was relevant to Bonnell, and felt that the language used to describe the comments by other outlets would suffice. Jafari, however, 1) has his own Wikipedia page where that information belongs, whereas Gudgel doesn't, and 2) received substantially more coverage for his comments. I'm leaning against including this Gudgel quote but want to hear from others. I'm also changing the name of 'Political views' to 'Political views and activism' because of the way this section has expanded since I first wrote it. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The section heading change makes obvious sense. Regarding how to write about breaking ties with Gudgel, I think I'd prefer to just use the secondary source (and not the Facebook link) and summarise what happened as the source does. Here's how the article summarises the incident: The relationship began to draw criticism last month over an expletive-laden clip from one of Bonnell’s livestreams from the summer... Gudgel condemned that statement last week and severed ties with Bonnell. Gudgel has been advocating for racial equity and police oversight as part of his campaign. “Bonnell’s incitement of violence runs contrary to everything I believe and have dedicated my career to as a public servant and educator over the past 17 years,” Gudgel wrote on social media I think the reason for the quote (and why the article used it) is to explain why Bonnell's statements caused Gudgel to cut ties with him, rather than just being information about Gudgel himself specifically. So tldr my preference would be to remove the "reprehensible statements" Facebook quote (it's unfortunately not in the article...) and just use the secondary source, though I'm open to suggestions of other ways of summarising that article. As a side note there's probably more from that article that we could add, but I'm not sure how long this section deserves to be. Volteer1 (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This sounds pretty reasonable to me. I'm still personally not convinced we need the quote, but this is minor and certainly not something I feel strongly about. I've made an edit based on what you've said here. If others want to chime in we can always keep editing, but I'm happy with this. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

How to upload a photo of Bonnell (or anyone)

Hello all, Leopard of the Snows here again. We've been through a number of photos of Bonnell the past few months because none of them were uploaded according to Wikipedia's copyright policy. This page seems to attract a lot of new Wikipedians, so let's use this post as a place for learning how to get permission for photos and clear them with the fine folks at Wikimedia commons:

• First, skim Wikipedia:Copyrights. You'll find that Fair Use is not acceptable on Wikipedia. For this page, this means that screenshots of streams are not allowed, because you do not own the copyright on the stream.
• Second, skim Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, which will explain the process of asking a copyright holder to waive the copyright on their work. You email Bonnell with a photo/screenshot of him and ask that he release the image to a creative commons license. For help wording an email in which you ask him to do so, skim Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.
• Third, you upload the photo to Wikimedia commons and tag the photo with {{OTRS pending}}, which signals to everyone that it is awaiting copyright approval.
• Fourth, you ask Bonnell to fill in the form found at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries (which you'll politely send to him so he can simply fill in the blanks himself) and tell him to reply that form both to you and to [permissions-commons@wikimedia.org]. A link to the photo in the Wikimedia commons will be in the form, so within a few days it will be approved by the permissions folks and it won't be removed from Wikipedia.
• Last, if this is an image to be used on a page, you may now edit the info box template to include your new no-copyright photo.

If this sound complicated, I promise it's not--it's just a bit annoying. Skim those Wikipedia how-to articles and you'll figure it out. To save yourself and the person you're emailing some time, ask them to release the copyright and include the email template in the same email, so they can send it off and move on. Hope this helps someone. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-Binary?

@GWPabst1931 can you provide a source (primary is fine I think) that shows Bonnell is non-binary and that Bonnell uses they/them pronouns? Leopard of the Snows (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Leopard of the Snows There is a recent youtube video where they talk about it briefly, but I cannot link it here due to youtube links being blacklisted

@GWPabst1931 If Bonnell confirms again and definitively then we can list an identity under 'personal life' as some editors have done in the recent past. Also, many non-binary people continue to go by he/him so before changing pronouns again we should primary source that change here (on the talk page) first. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@GWPabst1931 My mistake, just looked at the primary source which was recently linked on the article. Disregard my future tense above. In that video Bonnell says he still uses he/him. Leopard of the Snows (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@GWPabst1931 @Leopard of the Snows The YouTube link referenced only shows Steven saying that he is non-binary, however it does not say anything about his preferred he/him pronouns. I have heard that this is true, but I don't know a source on it. If anyone could update that that would be great.

Astral Shepherd undoing of my edits

@Astral_Shepherd Hey, I'm unsure why my edits were removed? (1) Destiny is polyamorous and he is in a polyamorous relationship. Why is that removed? It even says it on his website "Melina is currently my fiancée. We met in New Zealand when she was 20 years old and I was 30 years old. Melina and I are currently in an open/poly relationship. We treat each other as primary partners, though we may pursue other sexual/romantic relationships as well." source: https://positions.destiny.gg/docs/personal (2) Why was Vaush removed as an associated act? Vaush and Destiny have and many debates on multiple occasions so it seems fitting. However, I couldn't find exactly what constitutes as an "associated act" so maybe I'm just misinformed. DreamlessGlare (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Astral_Shepherd I reverted your "redundancy" removal of destiny being poly. I can't understand why it would be removed. Destiny being poly is an important thing to note and destiny being in a poly relationship too is important to note as he could be poly but choose to not be in a poly relationship for various reasons. DreamlessGlare (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@DreamlessGlare Hi, happy to explain the edits. Overall, your edits didn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability, which, broadly, require secondary sources to have reported on them. This means that both Bonnell's polyamory and Vaush are, generally speaking, not worthy of being included in this Wikipedia page. Vaush does not even have his own page because there has never been a feature written about him, and no feature about Bonnell (to my knowledge) mentions him. First, the matter of Bonnell being polyamorous seems to be redundant given we included that he is in an open relationship in the same sentence. There's actually some discussion on this page about including that, since the specific matter of the relationship being open/polyamorous is non-notable. Second, as I said, Vaush is non-notable. If we include a person who has never been written about in-depth by a journalist, why not include a list of every person Bonnell has ever interacted with? We should keep the "associated acts" to people who've been reported on by secondary sources as being involved with Bonnell. Astral Shepherd (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@DreamlessGlare Just to be more specific on the polyamory point, I think it is redundant to say he is in an open relationship and polyamorous, expecially given that neither are notable by Wikipedia's standards. If you can include a primary source to say he is polyamorous (which, correct me if I am wrong, I believe is more specific than 'in an open relationship') then cite it and replace 'open relationship' with 'polyamorous,' but I do not think we need both. Feel free to disagree if there is some difference between the two terms that necessitates including both, but since we are limited to primary sources on this we need to be extra judicious in what we consider necessary to understand Bonnell as a subject. Astral Shepherd (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Astral_Shepherd Hey sorry about the late response. Thanks for explaining your views on both topics, makes a lot of sense. As for the poly thing, I think you're right actually. Poly is a form of open relationship. But poly seems more descriptive imo, but that's fine too. I just feel that being poly is fairly significant to Steven that it deserves to exist on this page (if we could find the right source for it). DreamlessGlare (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Infrared Channel Not Notable?

An edit which previously referred to Haz from Infrared's interaction with Double D Destiny was reverted as not being notable. This is typical nonsense by Wikipedia hall monitors. But if we look at the material reality of the current situation, we can see that the Infrared channel is continuously growing and will soon be one of the most notable on the YouTube and Twitch platforms. Infrahaz (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! First off, you reverted my reversion by calling it "vandalism", this can put a mark on someones reputation, and is putting out a fallacy that is not true. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism to gain a better understanding on what vandalism is.

Anyways, this was one small incident, of one person insulting Destiny. I highly doubt this has enough of a long-term effect be placed on the article. Media outlets have covered Destiny before, as evident by his references, this falls very short of the precedent set by the incidents covered in the rest of the article. This is miniscule compared to all of the rest of the issues, where they mostly are not sourced from a single YouTube video. This YouTube video in question, is from a channel which has 33k subscribers, and 16k views on the specific video. It's not exactly a viral video, and the world does not seem to be responding to this en masse. You claim that "growing and will soon be one of the most notable on the YouTube and Twitch platforms", lets not use original research that we formulated ourselves for a argument. Instead, we can look at cold hard facts, which is that the Infared YouTube channel has 14k subscribers, which is miniscule to Destiny's following to be blunt. I am certain that Destiny has had this same caliber of insult, from many creators, large and small. But it's hardly groundbreaking, which is why I don't think it deserves to be in this article. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

On another note, you seem to have a serious POV issue with this, based on your username. I am concerned that you may be "Haz" from Infrared. If this is the case, I am afraid your edit could have serious Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issues. I would suggest you don't write content relating to yourself if this is the case. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Your bean counting and semantics don't change the material reality of the fact that the Infrared channel is becoming one of the most discussed in the online politics world. What a feeble attempt to save Gynecomastia Steven's reputation. Infrahaz (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

You likely have a serious Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest issue based on your username. I have no hope of reaching Wikipedia:Consensus with you about this subject. I'm going to recommend you step away from this discussion based on your likely COI. I am not planning on further continuing this discussion. Regards - Sea Cow (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Cozy.tv Refideas

I haven't seen any reliable third party sources talk about Destiny's Cozy.tv channel, but I did find both of these primary sources. Beyond notability concerns, adding this info to the article might be run afoul of WP:BLP, as being associated with Cozy.tv could reasonably be considered defamatory. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikibox photo

Should be changed to something that doesn't have a weird filter applied to it. DeKrypT (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you know of a freely-licensed alternative that could be used? It seems to be the best available option compared to its alternatives. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I would have preferred to have added a genuine "IRL" photograph from somewhere like flickr, but since there doesn't seem to be any freely available photographs of Destiny online, I had to use a screenshot from a freely available video on youtube. Because he was in a box relegated to 1/4 of the screen, I had to upscale the image so that it wasn't a low resolution mess. If someone can find a better, high resolution image of Destiny they should go ahead and add it; what's there now can be thought of for the moment as a stopgap measure. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

link rot / unreliable or dead source

A lot of this article cites one source: a Wired article (https://www.wired.com/story/twitch-politics-online-debate/) which now requires a paid subscription to view. This needs to be addressed as this is effectively now a dead link. Rather than add [citation needed] to nearly every claim in this article, I'll just leave this note and ask whomever maintains this article to figure this out so this article complies with Wikipedia's Link Rot and Reliability policies. Asaturn (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

That article was accessible to me just now, without a login or a subscription. It seems like Wired employs an "x free article views a month" type model, before insisting you subscribe to get unrestricted access: per their FAQ . Would that count as sufficiently inaccessible to say this link has rotted? I misread the date on this message, ignore me! Kdlev (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:PAYWALL there's nothing we have to do. Many sources used on Wikipedia, particularly academic sources, are behind paywalls. We don't reject them because they are harder for some to access. Also the source appears to have been archived in full anyway, so even if Wired suddenly went offline or the URL was to otherwise break, the information within is still verifiable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Career

"Justin.tv (which later merged with Twitch)" does not match the description of events on the justin.tv and twitch pages. 2601:84:C802:5DF0:45C3:4BE9:174A:D6F4 (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done. SWinxy (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)