Talk:Troy Brownfield

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 04:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sundry discussion

(Which begs the question:Since when is entering factual information vandalism? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a self-promotion service. Be honest enough not to deny that everything I've posted is, in fact, true. I'm not vandalizing. You're censoring.)

There's nothing factual about most of the statements you've made there. It's an inflammatory twisting of jokes and events that you've done up to give yourself a giggle; hell, Old Towne Video never even had a third shfit. Hilarious comments about the quality of my writing aside, you don't have one thing there that isn't wildly twisted. If you're so sure that you're right, why don't you sign your work and we'll see if doesn't constitute libel (especially the school funds bit; that's very cute)?

As to self-promotion, my name first appeared on Wikipedia in the context of an article about Newsarama. After someone added a stub, I fixed a couple of bits. Other people, including co-writers and students and yes, myself, have added other bits. That's not a violation, and I don't see why you'd care, except that you have some sort of axe to grind. Seriously: get help. Psikotyk 05:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

=============================

---

Get help? Hey - one of us published 3 columns in 18months complaining about his friends saying that he was using them. Mental health professionals call that a "red flag". I hope you've taken them down by now - because - geez - talk about airing your dirty laundry.

I understand your need to dispute this. Heck, Kenneth Lay went to his death bed insisting (even here on wikipedia) that he was an ethical businessman and a victim of a media conspiracy.Much like the famous battle over Kenneth Lay's wikipedia entry - I was just providing a balanced view to a one-sided article.

Regarding the school funds speculation quip - hey, it's not my fault that people in your past think of you in those terms. It was unprompted quote from a legitimate source and was thus valid for the article. 

In fact, I'd offer that the fact that so many people in your past were eager to contribute quotes to my addendum might have something to do with the way you've lived your life than any imbalance on their part. I'm sure you'll quickly dismiss that in an out of hand fashion, but it's the truth. And trust me, there was a LOT of material I left out.

As for those being "jokes" - they're weren't to the targets of your "humor". I mean, technically, they were "jokes" in the same ways that Imus' and Michael Richard's recent racial slurs were "jokes". They were meant to humiliate and degrade a target for public amusement.

As for the planned robbery being a "joke" - I could produce 4 people who would state otherwise on the record. I'm not inclined to - and you really don't want that.

Regading libel - that's a defense for people who know they're being lied about. You know that the article was truthful. One of the guys who contributed quotes for the article was nervous about the statute of limitations. He really didn't want to have to explain to the Terra Haute PD why he didn't report it at the time (what? 6 or 7 years ago) and figured that would color him as an accessory. Personally, I didn't figure the THPD would care anymore - but I deferred to his wishes. One would think you'd be grateful for the discretion.

You'd lose a libel case - and then all of this would be a matter of legal public record. Again - you really don't want that.

---

Dude, you're a joke. First of all, you don't have the sack to sign your name to your accusations. Go ahead. Put up. If you're so sure that you're right, let the world see YOUR name.

As for the whole "gay joke" thing that you're stuck on, the truth is this: that person's experience was not a one-on-one experience, but rather a three-way with a male friend and a female friend. That experience was not revealed to the rest of the guy's friends by me, but by a different friend from Terre Haute. Sure, I cracked jokes about that situation at the time, but about the finer details of the larger situation. In fact, the guy in question knew that I cracked jokes about it, and continued to hang out with me for years afterward. If it still really bothers him that I joked about his situation ten years ago, HE can tell me, and I'd apologize TO HIM. He's never mentioned it in the, again, TEN YEARS since, so I figure he doesn't really care.

As for the Old Towne Video thing, that certainly was all joking, and anyone who says otherwise simply wants me to look bad. Since you seem to be very concerned about it, let me assure you that there really wasn't much danger of it being real, since the whole seven-store chain folded not too long after I moved to Indy (which, again, was ten years ago). I really don't care how many unattributed quotes that you have to back up whatever you're flinging. You can debate the taste of jokes involving robbery, but I'm sure my cousin that's a Captain in the Terre Haute Police Department would tell you that they don't spend much time running down decade-old cracks made in Denny's.

You're also really stuck on comments I made in editorials (what, six years ago now?), but have the distinct inability to see that what you're doing is fairly crazy. Why do you even care? No matter what you want to say, I have a great professional reputation as both a writer and an educator. You have less than nothing to do with my involvement in either field, and I can't imagine why you'd care. You don't have to "protect the world" from me or anything. Really, you come as little more than a guy at his computer hoping that someone notices him. Unfortunately, I've given you too much time already. Do something better with your time; I know I have better things to do with mine.

Psikotyk 06:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

=========

I wonder who you're trying to persuade. last word is all yours

Keep it civil

A bit odd walking in on the end of this but can I remind people to remain civil. There have been some defmatory edits to this and I see the person adding them has been warned. It is worth reading the bibliography guidelines given above. Also I have unblanked this entry, in particular as Psikotyk appears to be Troy Brownfield, this would be stepping over the conflict of interest guidelines. Hopefully with a few more editors' eyes on this we can get things under control and keep things from getting out of hand again.

Also could everyone sign their posts? It is almost impossible to follwo who said what above? (Emperor 20:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

---

I agree, Emperor, that it should remain civil here. In addition to that, the entry for Troy Brownfield should not be deleted as Brownfield's work is read by hundreds of thousands of people a week. That's just on the ShotgunReviews.com site. It doesn't include the work he does for Newsarama (even larger readership) and contributions to sites like Wired.com. Some petty person with a grudge shouldn't lead to the deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.24.238 (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy

I of course declined it as the reviewing administrator. But I notice that some of the language shows some possible indications of being copied from some website, and I urge you to ensure that anything which needs to be rewritten does get rewritten. DGG (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

concerns about noteworthiness

If I'm reading this correctly, we've got an entry that appears to be mostly self-written (and if I understand the comments, Brownfield admits that it was started by a student of his - ie a person he has/had direct influence over) about an individual who is most well known for comic book reviews.

The previous commenter's claims about hundreds of thousands of readers seeing his work is all fine and good. Hundreds of thousands of readers see a variety of book, movie and comic reviews every day. That doesn't make every reviewer noteworthy. Please review the policy regarding this

I would suggest this be considered on grounds of note-worthiness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.120.202 (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

---

regarding shotgunreviews.com

According to these statistics shotgunreviews - for the last 3 months - averages less than 6 pageviews per visit. According to this chart average visitor stay for the last year is consistently below 2 minutes and thirty seconds. I think any claims of hundreds of thousands of viewers tot his site should be regarded with some skepticism. It has a decent visitor count - but given that this site is the first site returned when you google "shotgun reviews" - one has to wonder how many of the visitors are confused browsers looking for advice about firearms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.120.202 (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Brownfield

This is not a person of any noteworthiness. He's just another writer on an entertainment website.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.180.144 (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Troy Brownfield. 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://web.archive.org/web/20070128123438/http://www.intakeweekly.com/articles/9/025510-7539-160.html to http://www.intakeweekly.com/articles/9/025510-7539-160.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)