User talk:Tallulah/Gamergate Timeline inaccuracies

Here's the deal
I notice that one person is quite determined to have this page deleted. So here's an offer: I will remove any of the four claims that are successfully countered. Debunk all four, and I'll delete the article myself. Sound good? Tallulah (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you think this is a thing subject to negotiation? --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." Tallulah (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Right. Constructive dialogue does not equal "You will be obedient to my demands in regards to my narrative regarding these claims and maybe I will desist if you jump through my hoops to my satisfaction." I already know you think your claims are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. What dialogue is possible from that point, exactly? Especially when you are the sole determinant as to what evidence would and would not be accepted? No, I don't call that "constructive" at all. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Now you're just caricaturing me.
 * You've made a pretty big assumption about how I'd react to being refuted, considering that nobody has tried to refute me on this matter. They've called me a Gamergater, they've reverted my edits, they've deleted this article, they've blocked me - but nobody has even attempted to show how any of the points I raise here are wrong.
 * As for narratives, let's have a side by side comparison. This is the narrative that I think should be presented by Timeline of Gamergate:
 * "Gamergate made a series of allegations about Sarah Nyberg's history based on ten-year-old chatlogs in which she makes various distasteful statements. She responded with an article in which she argued that the comments in question were attempts at sick humour, which she has since come to regret."
 * I don't think anyone here would be able to argue with that version of events. Now, compare it to the narrative currently presented by the article:
 * First, Ryulong claims that the objectionable material in the chatlogs was copy-pasted from other people's roleplays, and that Nyberg did not write it herself.
 * Then he suggests that it was added to the logs by forgers, and that she did not write it herself.
 * Finally, he summarises her "I was a Teenage Edgelord" article in which she acknowledges that she wrote much of the material herself.
 * Anybody can see that Ryulong's version of events is wrong. Not only does it contradict itself, it contradicts the testimony of the very person it's trying to defend. So why keep it? Tallulah (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)