Talk:Lady Checkmate

Notability?

how notable is this person? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you say @CanisLupus? ScepticWombat (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Very, I would say - if the 70 thousand plus people she has banned from a single channel on Disqus alone suggests, as well as the spirited discussions she is generating on fstdt.com. Her name pops up on Kiwi Farms and other sites too.CanisLupus (talk)

on the nternet, are those numbers significant? is a mention on fstdt pr kiwi farms significant? i'm not sure that they are AMassiveGay (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The 70 thousand I cited is from the lesser of her two sites, I'm sure the number she's banned is far, far greater on her News Network channel which shows over 208,000 people and the place only has about 20 people these days. From what I have seen, she is like a snowball rolling down a hill and gathering more attention all the time. Simply typing her name into Google is testament to that. Also she's been around a number of years and shows no sign of disappearing overnight. There is no question her greatest "fame" is on Disqus, but that is a pretty significant site.CanisLupus (talk)

Bump, but I still see very little point in this article. It's weirdly detailed for a random yahoo on the Internet. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 04:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

To those using the Disqus forums for any reason, she is known far and wide - this I promise you.--CanisLupus (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Should we edit the page and turn the links in the page into references to make the page look more like a wiki? @CanisLupus TheEOE (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Also, you need to use {{ping|username}} to ping, not what you were doing. (sqıɹʇuoɔ) (ʞlɐʇ) ɐuıƃƃıɹds @ 03:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would improve the page. Bongolian (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks@Spriggina. I am good with the suggestion made by TheEOE. Can anyone assist? --CanisLupus (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@TheEOE, I'd like to bring the page up to RW standards, but I'm relatively new to it - can you tell me what you mean by "references" and I'll get started on doing that? --CanisLupus (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, what?

This page reads like internet gossip. I'm still not convinced we need an article, especially at this ridiculous amount of detail. "Oh, but KiwiFarms talks about her". KiwiFarms, the place that's run by creepy internet stalkers who don't care about notability, just want to stalk and dig up detailed dirt on random "crazy" people who do things. We are about document information crankery, but we ain't making articles with KiwiFarms as one of the foundations. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄

@LeftyGreenMario I was one of the people involved with writing the original article but couldn't log in (hence this new name). As far as I'm concerned the article may be deleted as it has probably served its purpose, but it isn't a gossip page simply because the subject is considered too obscure for your readership. KiwiFarms had practically nothing to do with her, it's the Disqus people who knew her best because anyone who attempted to write something on her forum found themselves with their content deleted and themselves banned. Feel free to try it yourself, log in with a Disqus account and make a comment on any article on her "Faith and Religion" or her "News Network" channels. It's pre-moderated so it won't ever see the light of day. Which I think most people would agree is kind of the antithesis of what a discussion forum (on a website called "Disqus" no less) is supposed to be. She has deleted and banned people in the thousands - literally thousands - after writing a single post for no reason other than she disagrees with them, which to my mind is internet crankery par excellence and her extreme Christian fundamentalism makes it worse. Also, Her material is more frequently discussed on FSTDT than KiwiFarms. I didn't know at the time of writing the article what level of infamy people needed to be at for the articles to be notable or relevant. I figured Disqus alone would be good enough. If it's not, then feel free to remove this article. I do question the practice of belittling people like myself for submitting things which I felt at the time would make for interesting reading even to those unfamiliar with Lady Checkmate. As it happens, her "fame" is not likely to increase since her own behavior has rendered her pages little more than echo chambers with only a few people left. At the time this article was written, she was better known.--DScarlatti (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The ping didn't fall through, so I'm just going to respond with a bump. I still don't know what her scope really is outside of the circles she made. I can't say the moderation she uses is unique compared to the other hypocritical things Christian conservatives do when they have power to moderate discussion (such as Conservapedia). I still don't know if she's really that relevant to Fundies Say the Darnest Things these days. I'm not belittling you, that wasn't my intent. I was strongly criticizing the article, particularly its strange depth to a reader like me who hasn't frequented Disqus comments or Fundies Say the Darnest Things, and that you (I think) previously brought up KiwiFarms as a supporting source when I really want as little to do with that site as possible. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Well regardless of any past disagreements, I'm actively on board with removing this entry from RationalWiki now because the standalone Disqus channels are being taken down and Lady Checkmate is no more. So what do we have to do to make this happen now?--CanisLupus (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Page removal request

Can someone remove this article - it has served its purpose and the standalone Disqus channels no longer exist, so the subject of the article is no longer online.--216.162.43.150 (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)