Jump to content

Talk:Douglas Tait (actor)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC Biography posting

[edit]
Per a request at WP:AN/RFC this RfC is closed as not including the edit. The result of this RfC is that two user receiving topic bans from this article. The consensus was that the edit did not violate any policies, but that WP:Editorial discretion be used and not include what was described as trivia. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the material removed with this edit from Douglas Tait (stuntman) be reinserted? Novaseminary (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Yes. I think the material should be reinserted because despite claims by the variable IPv6 editor who removed it, this material does not violate WP:BLP/WP:BLPREMOVE. Because the text is appropriate and satifies the relevant policies and guidelines. I propose restoring the article to the version reflecting the last edit I made before the IP last removed the material.
Background: This text was first removed in May but ultimately briefly discussed (here) and restored. Over the last month, the material (and other very minor bits) was again removed by a variable IPv6 editor (who in one attack episode also reverted many of my others edits dating back some time), reverted/reinserted by me and two other eds (other eds: here and here), and removed again by an IP who finally claimed it was a BLP violation on talk (same talk section) after having failed to discuss at all until page protection was requested.
Reasoning: On the talk above and in my initial attempt to solicit comment at BLPN, the IP claimed that the text was properly removed per WP:BLPREMOVE and also violates WP:NPF.
  • With respect to BLPREMOVE, I do not think the material is particularly contentious (disputed, open to interpretation, etc...), though it is not flattering. Even if it is contentious, is very well-sourced. BLPREMOVE speaks to poorly or entirely unsourced material. This is neither.
  • I think it meets NPF because it is directly relevant to the subject's notability (though there is no consensus that the subject even meets N). According to Tait as quoted in what is the reference now at note 7, Tait's high school basketball proficiency led directly to his acting career (Tait's answer to the first question in this "article": "I was an All Star basketball player so she sent me on basketball commercials, which quickly got me in to S.A.G., and I made a living doing basketball commercials in the early years while I was honing my acting skills."). The full context of his high school basketball career is more complicated than Tait merely being a standout. There is no reason the reader should not know this. Anything related to what led directly to Tait's claim to notability is itself relevant to Tait's notability.
Novaseminary (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Editors should review the discussion here before commenting. This editor is now forum shopping in the hope of gaining support for his repeated policy vios and tendentious editing.
  • As discussed at length on the original BLP Noticeboard, Novaseminary is insistent on including irrelevant, 20 year old, and contentious material, even after being repeatedly advised of the numerous policies this material violates. But in addition to the clear violations of BLPREMOVE and NPF, this editor never answers the basic question of HOW this material is relevant.
  • HOW are the specific actions that occurred on the specific dates referenced in these articles, specifically relevant to the fact that Tait was subsequently cast as an actor, in part, based upon his high school basketball skills. The editor never answers this simple question.
  • Wikipedia is not an expose' website, or a "dirt-digging", TMZ-esque website. Nor does WP do independent "investigative journalism." WP is exclusively, a tertiary source. So the argument regarding "the full context of his high school basketball career" is not only irrelevant, but false. What is solely relevant is that Tait played high school basketball, which led to his getting acting jobs as a basketball player. The End. The current version of the article does that.
  • But following Novaseminary's logic, should we also include Tait's box scores per game? How about his win/loss record? Or perhaps his shooting percentage? His GPA which made him eligble to play? The results of his physical, which did the same thing? At what point will even Novaseminary accept that not every single fact is relevant or worthy of inclusion. Especially since Tait's notability comes as an actor/creature performer/stuntman/film maker, not as a basketball player. Because if the "full context of his high school basketball career" is really relevant, then we have more information to include. Obviously at some point it becomes ridiculous.
  • But the real "full context" is already contained in Tait's own quote, which Novaseminary provided: "I made a living doing basketball commercials in the early years while I was honing my acting skills." That's it. In one sentence, Tait himself explains any relevance better than all of Novaseminary's quotes and sources combined. And Tait is a primary source, so even better. Once the block is lifted and since he referenced it himself, apparently Novaseminary will have no objection to including Tait's quote in the article.
  • For someone who constantly questions Tait's professional notability, Novaseminary struggles mightily to include non-notable material from Tait's prep school years. Why? Perhaps this is your intent - which itself is clear POV pushing - and violates another WP policy. Novaseminary has also ventured well beyond WP:OR, as seen here and here, with no signs that this long-term editing pattern is finally coming to an end. So I believe it is past time to seriously discuss a subject block. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3D41:47E5:EC56:15A5 (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but this is not the place to discuss blocking me or to dicsuss me at all. The question at issue is, simply: does this text belong back in the article? Notwithstanding IPv6's ad hominem attacks, I think IP's threshold of relevance on this biography does not make sense. Of course, I "accept that not every single fact is relevant or worthy of inclusion." That is why I removed mention (and because it was OR) of the sunbject's various autograph appearances from a much earlier verison of this article. But the facts under discussion were covered in the LA Times and relate to what one would presume to be formative experiences for the subject. IP's problem with these facts really seems to be that they are not flattering. Regardless, the text and sources speak for themselves. I trust other editors will not view my unwillingness to further engage in the IP's filibuster-liek tactics as acquiescence to whatever IP writes next. We need to hear from other editors. Novaseminary (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response - You filed this RFC - in your 3rd action/forum in a week. So it's reasonable to question your editing. Legitimate questions about bias aren't, and shouldn't be confused with, ad hominem attacks. On the WP policy page for tendentious editing, under "Characteristics of problem editors", is: "One who accuses others of malice". So for me to defend against misdirection and attacks, only distracts from the real issue. I've quoted BLPREMOVE and NPF. But you won't answer: What Tait's off-the-court history had to do with him getting acting jobs playing a basketball player - and what source says so? None of your LA Times sources makes any connection between those two things. Nor does Tait, whom you quoted directly. Only you do. With no source. On the TE page is also: "One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject". You can refuse "to further engage in the IP's filibuster-liek tactics". That's also on TE under: "One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors". But every other editor should need a source before voting yes. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:709C:2197:78A9:220F (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. I looked at the FAs of film/media people. In a similar section of the article on Angelina Jolie, it mentions problems she had as a teen (especially the third and fourth paragraphs). In a section of the Eric Bana article, it notes trouble he got into as a child and how he first got into acting through standup comedy (second paragraph). Both of these actors (and their articles were the first two FAs I picked, so I assume there are others) are much, much more well-known that Tait (who has never had a major role in a major film, it seems), so NPF clearly does not apply to them. But I think these do support the idea that episodes like those under discussion here are covered in FAs and can provide insight into what later made the person notable. Novaseminary (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt it. If an equivalent example exists, it hasn't been identified. WP:NPF does apply to this BLP, while it doesn't apply to either of the Angelina Jolie or Eric Bana articles. NPF says: "Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability". So comparing Tait's NPF to FAs of famous film/media people makes little sense. It's also odd comparing Tait to Jolie and Bana, while also questioning his notability. There are also concerns about balance and undue weight. This article is currently bare-bones as it is, so dumping in all this obscure material would just make it top-heavy to his high school life, and make that even more significant than his subsequent professional career as an adult. The current version gives the same relevant facts, and does so in a succinct, well-sourced, uncontentious and "restrained" way. Without violating BLPREMOVE, and exactly as indicated by NPF. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:709C:2197:78A9:220F (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per Novaseminary. Also, personal attacks will not be tolerated.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my Response above to your NPA, then kindly discuss your vote so it will appear to be more than just a coordinated action. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:709C:2197:78A9:220F (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly with Novaseminary's position on this issue. Verifiable reliably sourced information should be kept in an article unless it can be disproven by more or better sourced information. There may be an issue of undue weight, but the information should be there. I have held this opinion at least since my first edit on the article 03:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[1], over four months before your first edit on this project less than 21 hours ago, 05:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[2], so I wonder with whom are you coordinating. My goals in editing this article and talk page are working together to produce the best article on the subject in compliance with established policies and guidelines. What are your goals in editing this talk page? You haven't even edited this article (as far as I can tell; if you have, please create an account and tell us which other IP Addresses you have been using).   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You focused almost exclusively on WP:VRS and me, without ever addressing the issues I presented. You do however, acknowledge a concern with WP:UNDUE, which if you review the edit log you will discover was my original concern with this material all along. There is also a question of WP:BALANCE given the relatively short article we're discussing. But are you familiar with WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:NPF? Because you ignored both. Do you appreciate their relevance and applicability here? RS is specifically discussed under BLPREMOVE as not being sufficient. Kindly review it. I have also quoted it directly several times here. The policy requires that material must be relevant and may not be contentious. This material fails both policy tests. All your rubber-stamping of this material months ago and apparently still now proves, is that you did not apply those WP policies then, and you appear uninterested in reviewing them now. Like Novaseminary, your quarrel is not with me, it's with these policies. But again, you seem more interested in pursuing an attack on me and my IP, neither of which are relevant in this forum - which I also expect that you would know. If you are able to re-focus, I would welcome a civil discussion on the merits, and on the actual topic of this RFC. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my question. I believe the information on the subject's high school basketball experience is relevant background to his acting as a basketball player and the physicality of his stunt work, and their negative weight is far outbalanced by his later award-winning positive acting and producing credits. I don't believe BLPREMOVE applies because the negative material is well-sourced. As to NPF, the truth is always a valid defense to claims of defamation.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You just made my point!: "the subject's high school basketball experience is relevant background to his acting as a basketball player and the physicality of his stunt work". Agreed! Just insert the word "competitive" before "experience" and you are correct. Because that is relevant. But unless you can demonstrate how any off-court injuries, suspensions or incidents were in themselves relevant? They are irrelevant. Put another way, IF these off-court events had never taken place, would he still have been cast to play basketball roles because of his basketball abilities? The answer is undoubtedly YES. Therefore the events you want to include are irrelevant to his notability, whether they are well-sourced, truthful or not. None of that matters since they had no impact on his getting basketball roles that lead to his successful film career. If you disagree, then explain how they are relevant to his notability when his notability would have happened without them. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:9982:6E77:E3FC:7EC8 (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BLPREMOVE is not applicable here as, 1. I believe both parties agree the sources in question are RS, and 2. the contentious edits in question are almost drawn verbatim from the article. No original research or synthesis is being done. As I see it, the dispute over the edits in question boils down to just one policy: WP:NPF, and thus hinges on whether or not Tait can be considered "relatively unknown". I personally don't feel that I am sufficiently experienced with BLP matters to offering an opinion on what I think is an awfully vague guideline. As such, I think the best thing to do would be to return to the BLP Noticeboard for a RFC there. I know that Novaseminary and the IPv6 editor have already been there, but I'd think editors active on that page would be more experienced with WP:NPF and deciding whether or not someone is "relatively unknown" or not.
Going off the topic of this RFC, I do believe the IPv6 editor's conduct on this talk page and others with regards to Novaseminary have been highly aggressive and almost certainly a violation of WP:NPA. Given what I believe to be (the whole dynamic IP thing throws me off)the IPv6 editor's recent block for personal attacks against Novaseminary, and comments like "You obviously have no shame. And no character either. Agenda pushing editors like you are an absolute disgrace, and why the very credibility of this project is under constant assault." in his/her first response on this talk page, as well as numerous other instances in his/her following edits, I would be very interested in pursuing or participating in an RFC on his/her conduct. Jonathanfu (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response. While I do disagree with your interpretation of BLPREMOVE on several counts, I accept your honest response that you're really not experienced with BLP or NPF. Like Novaseminary, you also didn't address the relevance of the RSs. The RSs do not draw the conclusions claimed. So whether they are quoted verbatim or not is moot if they themselves are irrelevant. I've also said I have no objection to this or any other forum.
As to your "off topic" personal attack, if Novaseminary can claim that his conduct is not the topic of this RFC, so can I. But my conduct in this RFC has been unassailable, so your unprovoked attack was itself inappropriate here and unwarranted. Particularly since you've apparently made several assumptions about this IP that you didn't bother to confirm. The fact is, I was not blocked. Nor was I responsible for any actions that were. Frankly, I wasn't even aware of any block until I saw your link. Several other individuals use this IP and can easily access it's page history and bookmarks. That's not uncommon with IPs, and while you should know that, apparently you did not. Also the IP changes, and I'm not responsible for the actions of all IPv6. So you might consider all these apparently new facts before you make any more unfounded and unhelpful assertions, or commit yourself to more ill-conceived RFC. I have treated you civilly throughout and would appreciate the same courtesy. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:709C:2197:78A9:220F (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:709C:2197:78A9:220F (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I did not address the relevance, as it is entirely conditional upon WP:NPF and whether or not Tait is relatively unknown. If he is unknown, then I think the material in question would be excluded, and if not, as per examples of more famous people, it should be included. But again, I would prefer to leave that question up to editors more experienced with BLP and NPF.
I think you'd benefit from rereading the policy page about personal attacks; my pointing out personal attacks have been made by you on this very talk page do not constitute an attack. I understand that IP addresses are often used by multiple users, indeed, have all too much experience with IP editors both being used by multiple and very different editors, as well as single editors claiming they are multiple people. However, given that several IP addresses12345678 from the range 2602:3FF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF have only made edits on this article, or made 1 or 2 edits several minutes before editing this article, and they did the same removing that you did, I did not feel it was a huge jump to assume it was the same editor. I don't know what other tools administrators have access to that might be used to discern whether or not you are the same editor, but with what I have available, that's how it looked. I can only stress what I have mentioned two threads above: create an account in order to avoid being lumped in with editors from your zip code. This would prevent other editors from quite reasonably believing a single editor from a dynamic IP is making these edits, as well as keep you from being blamed for what other editors at your IP address are doing. I thank you for trying to adhere to WP:CIVILITY, but would hope that you would extend that to your tone and comments when addressing Novaseminary. I did say that my comment on your behavior was off topic as the RFC was placed to discuss the edits in question. If you wish, I can strikethrough the portion of my comments about behavior and replace them elsewhere on this talkpage. Jonathanfu (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like you, let's focus first on what it appears we agree on. I acknowledge and appreciate your candid response with regard to your unfamiliarity with BLP or NPF. But I did not make those claims in a vacuum, I actually quoted them. WP:BLPREMOVE calls for "the immediate removal of contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source", while WP:NPF advises that we "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability". We all agree that the LA Times itself is a reliable source, but that as you see in BLPREMOVE, is not the sole threshold. The source not only must be relevant, but it must also say what is claimed or inferred that it says. In this case, it does not. It is Novaseminary's entire argument that the subject's off-court high school actions, which are only chronicled in Novaseminary's clippings, are directly causative to his eventual work as an actor/stuntman/film maker - the source of his notability. But not one of those clips makes that claim. Novaseminary even references a Tait interview where even HE does not state that conclusion. But Novaseminary can? No. That "is a conjectural interpretation of a source" and a policy vio. Novaseminary himself also admitted several times the material is "unflattering". What he calls "unflattering", policy calls "contentious". A quick Google search points to Thesaurus.com showing the two terms "unflattering" and "contentious" are synonymous in four categories: "Malevolent", "Malicious", "Spiteful" and "Un-favorable" Synonyms. All along I've said Novaseminary wasn't fighting me. He was fighting WP policies. Now he can add the thesaurus to his fight card.
As to the IP issue, let me be clear. I "immediately" reverted Novaseminary's contentious material each time he posted it, as BLPREMOVE dictates. Since per the policy, and despite Novaseminary's repeated claims to the contrary, "the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals" My actions did not result in any block, nor should they have. The responses in this forum have also all been mine. As to recent IP comments elsewhere on this talk page, they were a response to review of the entire talk page and Novaseminary's edit history on this BLP. I will not address them further here, because again, this is not the appropriate forum for doing so. But, if you wish, will be happy to do so in the venue of your choosing. As to WP:CIVILITY, beyond that, my responses to Novaseminary in this forum are all appropriate. I also hope you are equally mindful that civility cuts both ways, and comments like Novaseminary's "unwillingness to further engage in the IP's filibuster-liek [sic] tactics" are not helpful. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the IP (by that, I mean the person who has been posting using IP v6 Addresses in the range 2602:3FF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF) has made at least one personal attack here, and I issued a warning to that effect.[3] I would also be interested in participating in an RFC on his/her conduct.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given this is your second comment/threat/attack about me, and not the topic of this RFC, when you were never personally attacked, I'm not sure you shouldn't disqualify yourself from participation in any RFC. This one included. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly provide a single user talk page on which to discuss your conduct. I call personal attacks as I see them, wherever I happen to find them, regardless of their targets.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time now, you have chosen to focus, not on the actual topic of this RFC, but on me and my IP. Which surely you know is inappropriate in this forum. So I will not indulge your attempts at distraction and deflection. They constitute your own personal attacks, as I see it. Kindly refrain from attacking editors and limit your future comments to the topic. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only the IP seems to think BLPREMOVE applies to this material. Until this IP editor came along earlier this month, this well-sourced material was in the article for several months. The status quo before the current disagreement is for the material to be in the article. Absent a policy reason for immediate removal, it should stay in until consensus to remove it is achieved (WP:STATUSQUO:"If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change."). I will reinsert and trust that that IP will leave it until s/he can form a contrary consensus here. If the IP disagress and believes BLPREMOVE does apply, s/he should post at the approrpiate notceiboard and leave it to an administrator to remove (WP:3RRNO and WP:BLPREMOVE). As for NPF, it seems this well-covered material directly relates to a topic (high school basketball) the subject has discussed in the media (he has discussed his high school basketball career, of not his suspensions, etc., as being pivotal in his success as an actor). I'm not sure NPF applies (Tait certainly seems to want to be well-known), but even if it does, I think this material should be in. Either way, it should stay until consensus to remove materializes. Novaseminary (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With this edit, I have reinstated the status quo. Novaseminary (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the material on the same grounds as before, but now with a new one. You started this forum during page protection. It would seem reasonable at minimum to expect that you would respect this process and not touch the article until this issue is resolved. There is still no consensus and several editors are actively engaged in comment. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody but you, IP, thinks BLPREMOVE applies. If you want the material out immediately, take it to a noticeboard. My asking for discussion does not mean the status quo is not the status quo. It is what we are supposed to do on WP. Novaseminary (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And to be clear, I have now reverted twice. IP has reverted once (unless s/he reverts while I am typing this). I will not revert again. If IP does, I hope and expect other editors will enforce the months log status quo until consensus is reached otherwise, or some other immediate removal rpovision applies. Novaseminary (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As expected, IP continues to enforce his/her non-consensus view. S/he has reverted again. I am not going to bother reverting again, but I hope other editors will enforce the long-standing version. Novaseminary (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under most circumstances, your claim of WP:STATUSQUO would be legitimate and I would have complied. But whether you agree with WP:BLPREMOVE or not, even you must admit it expressly says: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person". So "remove immediately" would reasonably supersede STATUSQUO. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And by saying "take it to a noticeboard", are you now saying you are unwilling to continue with this RFC here and wish to return to the BLP Noticeboard - where we already were? And where at least two other editors have told you we should have been all along? Because if you're willing to agree that we're done here, I'm perfectly prepared to return there. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be best if we do return to the BLP noticeboard, I think it's more likely more editors will notice the RFC there.
You do realize the google search you linked to earlier was to the synonyms of "malicious", and that the same thesaurus does not list "contentious" and "unflattering" as synonyms of each other? But that's not important, with regards to BLPREMOVE, contentious material is any material that editors disagree on - the simple fact that you and Novaseminary disagree on its inclusion makes it contentious in the eyes of BLPREMOVE. So you're right that it's contentious. However, you are incorrect in stating that the edits in question are a violation of BLPREMOVE. Novaseminary doesn't interpret the information provided by the sources at all, he adds the information as is stated by them. And while Novaseminary claims that the information is relevant and NGF-compliant, the edits themselves contain no original research - the edits do not claim anything that is not supported by sources, and as such, are not subject to BLPREMOVE. The behavior you mistakenly refer to as "conjectural interpretation" of sources is just Novaseminary's argument for inclusion. None of that made it to the article itself.
Furthermore, BLPREMOVE does not say "The source not only must be relevant, but it must also say what is claimed or inferred that it says" as you claim, it actually doesn't say anything about relevance at all. The issue of relevance relies within the realm of NPF, and as such, your reverts are still in violation of 3RR. As a bit of advice, relying on BLPREMOVE to circumvent 3RR instead of going to a BLP noticeboard as is suggested by the policy is never a good idea, admins are prone to applying short blocks for that.
From the way this discussion has been going since I was last here it looks like this will be moving to the BLP noticeboard anyway, so I'll wait till then to discuss the issue of WP:NPF. Jonathanfu (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you in several areas. I've argued all along that the material was contentious, but since Novaseminary challenged the definition of the word, it devolved into a debate on semantics. I checked the thesaurus link I provided again, and it popped up both the term Novaseminary uses ("unflattering") and the WP term ("contentious") as synonyms under four words: "Malevolent", "Malicious", "Spiteful" and "Un-favorable", so I included the search. I take your point that thesauruses don't always cross-reference, and even search results may differ from individual links, but the point was made. We agree that since the material provoked disagreement, it is contentious. But I believe the "conjectural interpretation" of the sources applies, also as regards original research. Because a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources" also vios OR. Four separate articles were combined to infer a negative conclusion. That's also WP:SYN. We also agree that my explanation somewhat conflated BLPREMOVE and NPF. But we disagree on the BLPREMOVE, because it addresses "potentially defamatory material" and the 3RR because of: "Remove immediately any contentious material" and "the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals". Finally, we agree that this would/should have been resolved at BLP Noticeboard, and we should have never left there (a point also made by other editors and at least one admin). So I have returned the discussion there. I'll look forward to discussing NPF with you there. Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:EDE0:D975:4747:24D6 (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BLPREMOVE state "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". IP conveniently forgets the bolded part. Even if the material is contentious, it is only subject to BLPREMOVE if "unsourced or poorly sourced". This material is indisputably well-sourced. Thus, the conditions for immediate removal under BLPREMOVE are not met. Novaseminary (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Novaseminary conveniently forgets that BLPREMOVE also says "Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard." It's bolded for the editor's benefit. Accordingly the matter has been returned to that Noticeboard. Until a final determination and consensus is reached there on the appropriateness of BLPREMOVE, the contentious material will be removed. The editor also conveniently ignores NPF which warns to "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability" so however well-sourced the material may be is irrelevant, as is the material if it is not relevant to the person's notability. There is no question that this material is irrelevant to Tait's notability. The article has also been significantly improved by the inclusion of the Tait quote. A quote that Novaseminary has repeatedly referenced. So there should be no issue regarding it's relevance. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:9982:6E77:E3FC:7EC8 (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say there is no question the material is irrelevant when several other editors disagree with you, and the one editor who might be leaning your way (based on the non-compromise text, not the current text) seems to acknowledge there is a question. But EVERY other editor who has looked agrees, here and at BLPNB that BLPREMOVE does not require the immediate removal of this material. Novaseminary (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To narrowly focus here for once, I would prefer a content response rather than an attempted head counter response. Simply answer my one question regarding NPF. If Tait's notability began because of his ability to PLAY a high school basketball player, which we all agree on, then how are ANY occasions where he DID NOT PLAY basketball, from either suspension, injury or other, relevant to his notability? NPF is a really straightforward policy. Just as it's a really straightforward question. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E8F2:DB14:BE0E:1920 (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP, you're misapplying WP:SYN and WP:OR here. Let's put aside, for the purposes of this discussion, Novaseminary's arguments for inclusion and just look at the edits.

In December 1990, as a sophomore then playing forward, Tait "broke both wrists by punching a brick wall during a shoot-around practice" because a teammate's errant shot hit Tait as Tait "was attempting a slam dunk."[7] In January 1992, Tait was suspended for one game for fighting during a game.[8] In December 1992, during his senior year, Tait, then playing guard, was removed from the team for "using vulgarities and abusive language toward the players" at an Alemany High School girls' basketball game.[5] Tait returned to the team later that season.[6]

Novaseminary has compiled several bits of information here, but he does not draw any conclusions within the edits. No "negative conclusion", as you put it, has been drawn; no conclusion whatsoever has been drawn. No position is being advanced. While the information may not be directly relevant to his notability under WP:NPF, if that applies, it doesn't claim anything, positive or negative, about Tait. If we pretend Tait himself is contributing to this article in his cited interview, we have a fictional example of WP:SYN.

I was an All Star basketball player so she sent me on basketball commercials

You can see that Tait draws the unsourced conclusion that being an all-star basketball player got him sent to audition for basketball commercials. Despite this being quite logical, as our fictional Tait did not provide a reliable source that explicitly draws this conclusion by itself, he is guilty of WP:SYN. You can see that unlike the edits we've been discussing, there is a conclusion being drawn that was not sourced - as opposed to every conclusion (e.g. "broke both wrists because ____" or "was removed from the team for ____") within the edits has been directly taken from one of the sources provided. If you disagree with my statements, please point out and quote what conclusions Novaseminary is drawing within these edits, as I cannot find them. Jonathanfu (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I hope I don't sound like a broken record, but is that a no to creating an account? Jonathanfu (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is flawed regarding the paragraph and I'll explain why. Let's take a purely hypothetical series of sentences:

"I love my mother.[1] Sometimes my mother drives me insane.[2] She never asks more of me than I can realistically do.[3] Sometimes she can be so demanding.[4] She's a wonderful role model.[5] Yet to people she doesn't know, she can be cold and detached.[6]"

I can edit a paragraph at least two ways. Of the six sentences, if I selectively edit only the odd numbered sentences I get this:

"I love my mother.[1] She never asks more of me than I can realistically do.[3] She's a wonderful role model.[5]"

By contrast, if I selectively edit only the even numbered sentences I get this:

"Sometimes my mother drives me insane.[2] Sometimes she can be so demanding.[4] Yet to people she doesn't know, she can be cold and detached.[6]"

Now don't tell me these edits "does not draw any conclusions within the edits". Or no "negative conclusion" or "no conclusion whatsoever" has been drawn in the even numbered edits. That's clearly absurd.
Your analysis of Tait's quote is also incorrect. In your example, Tait doesn't have to provide a reliable source for a conclusion he draws about his own life. Since he was there, he IS the reliable source, In fact, he is a primary source. Who better to recount the events than an eye-witness? Neither WP or history would ask Mrs. Kennedy for a "reliable source" to the question of if her husband was assassinated. She was there.
But back to Tait. He is a reliable source on what was influential in his own success. HE claimed being an All Star basketball player was because his ability was useful in getting his early acting jobs. HE never said anything regarding Novaseminary's synthesis from several different articles was influential at all. He does not even mention them. In fact, they would be nothing more than archival if Novaseminary hadn't dug up 20 year old trivia and tried to pass it off something of substance when it isn't. WP isn't The National Enquirer and it isn't Perez Hilton. It's not a tabloid or a gossip blog even if Novaseminary or anyone else thinks it is. My question is: where are ANY more recent articles in the past 20 years that point to Novaseminary's events as being so pivotal to Tait's subsequent life, success, or notability. Where?! Because only they would provide the link to an entirely fictitious "relevance" that otherwise does not exist.
Finally, as to creating an account. To what purpose, more of this? 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E8F2:DB14:BE0E:1920 (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since we have all agreed to move this discussion to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Douglas_Tait_.28stuntman.29_-_2nd_Review_Request, let's keep it there. I am removing the RfC tag to avoid any confusion. Novaseminary (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry Novaseminary, the discussion I have going with the IP here is more of a discussion of BLPREMOVE, which I'd rather have here than waste more editors' time on it at the BLP noticeboard when the relevant policy is NPF.
Okay, so what conclusions specifically are you saying the edits make? If it's clearly absurd, I would think it's clearly visible, and I'm not seeing it. If he's doing something similar to your example with these edits, please point it out to me. I can see how removing certain of your example sentences can create a different meaning, but when I do the same thing to Novaseminary's, I get pretty much the same thing. Unless I remove the last one in which he returns to the team.
I failed to properly explain my pretend situation of Tait's synthesis, and for that I apologize. In hindsight, it would've been much easier and less stupid if I had begun my example of SYN with "A non-Tait editor adds this statement to Wikipedia", or if I had just made something up. But again, relevance is a matter for NPF, which I agree with which you may have a case for removing the information. But that's neither BLPREMOVE nor BLPREMOVE.
Hopefully I've addressed your questions in my recent post on the Noticeboard. I didn't realize we were going to continue to have parallel discussions. But if you read what I've discussed there and what I've done with the article and would still like to continue here, let me know. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:55B0:9346:5170:4180 (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you had created an account before you began discussion on this talk page, nobody would have mistaken you for the editor who was briefly blocked for NPA against Novaseminary and we all would have saved some time, not to mention, suspicion that you may not be telling the truth. That's just one benefit. The other is that anybody can see your zip code when you edit as an IP. I know it's not much, but as for myself, I like to keep that sort of thing private. Besides, making an account does not force you to keep using it after you are no longer interested in being active on Wikipedia - if you are not interested in having similar discussions in the future, then don't - having an account would not pressure you into doing something you don't want to. Jonathanfu (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:55B0:9346:5170:4180 (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to keep the limited discussion going here. I'm not sure our IP has denied being this editor, though. Novaseminary (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, s/he did a bit earlier "The fact is, I was not blocked. Nor was I responsible for any actions that were. Frankly, I wasn't even aware of any block until I saw your link. Several other individuals use this IP and can easily access it's page history and bookmarks." Jonathanfu (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good catch. Of course, as you noted, all the more reason to create an account. But the IP might have switched and not noticed the block. And what are the odds that multiple people using the same computer (only way history and bookmarks would be the same) would be editing this article without coordinating as meat puppets of sorts or have some close relationship with the subject that would lead them to independently revert the exact samae material several months after it was added. Maybe at a PR firm? Weird. Novaseminary (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but no thanks, I have no interest in creating an account. But I did have a laugh at your suggestion that Tait had retained a PR firm, somehow manifested in me. Perhaps I should be flattered. But it is odd when you consider that on the one hand, you have persistently questioned Tait's notability, yet then on the other hand, you now speculate that he was notable enough or even successful enough, to have/need/retain a PR firm? I'll leave you to sort out the inherent contradictions. But on a more relevant note, a review of the current article (unless you've changed it after I've written this) and my most recent Noticeboard comments and the compromise I've proposed, should finally put this issue to rest and close the matter. For now. We'll see. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:55B0:9346:5170:4180 (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of lousy PR firms. And hiring a PR firm does not mean one has been successful, nor does having a WP article written about oneself. Maybe several fans of his just happen to use your computer, but not coordinate their WP editing. I wonder how Tait got Tommy Garrett to write the now-disclaimed Canyon News posts. Anyway, if adding more "context" about several high school basketball games satisfies your NPF and BLPREMOVE concerns, all is well. Novaseminary (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That fact that now you purport to be some expert on "lousy PR firms" and what hiring one does or doesn't mean, cracked me up! Who knew?! Just like your Magic 8 ball answer about "several fans" who "just happen to use my computer"? Hysterical! But a good lesson learned. No need to attack you... just need to give you enough rope. Like Tommy Garrett? Another good one! My suggestion, since you're so interested? Why don't you just call him and ask him directly? Or ask Tait for that matter? Since as we know from this talk page, you have no problem violating no original research. You clearly have tons of questions you need answered. So go for it, Javert.
As for the "context" about Tait's high school games? Another funny. Especially since the log shows you brought them up. Careful what you ask for? As for being the subject of a WP article? I wouldn't know. But isn't "Nova Seminary" notable enough for one? Again, don't know. But I also don't care. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48F0:76A9:9553:3291 (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We would all do better if we stick to discussing the content of the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Please feel free to monitor the BLP and talk and contribute to the discussion. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48F0:76A9:9553:3291 (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

process question

[edit]

Is this a formal RfC? If so, where is the RfC tag? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was, but then was moved back to BLPNB. Novaseminary (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball trivia

[edit]

Information restored here is indeed utterly trivial and should go. Per which policy, you ask? Per the policy of good article writing. The person isn't notable as a basketball player, for starters. This long, long discussion above is great, and here is my take: trim. Drmies (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Article much improved with the early life/high-school basketball section being trimmed down to its present three-sentence state. With Wikipedia biographical articles, less is often more. Shearonink (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with the three sentence statement. This is pretty close to a version I suggested above weeks ago. Oddly, the IP further whittled to one dispite our cirrent discussion. With this edit I put back the trimmed, three sentence version. Novaseminary (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shearonink explicitly agreed with the 3 sentence version. It appears so did Dr. I think that should be the truce version after PP expired. If anyone other than IP reverts/disagrees, fine with me. I will also remove the non-RS instance I think Dr. missed. Same deal with me abiding by reversion by anyone other than IP. Novaseminary (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Latest cleanup

[edit]

With this edit, I tried to cleanup some cites and make other explained (in edit summary) changes. IPv6 reverted without explanation with this edit. I remade the exaplined changes, and further split a confusing sentence into two, putting the appropriate source behind each sentence with this edit (here is the diff to what had been my prior edit and the same edit with a diff to the IPv6 revert). I'm not sure why IP reverted. The edits really didn't do much. I tried to leave as much of IPv6's own langauge as possible. I would expect IP to explain what was wronig with my edits before reverting again. Novaseminary (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, IP again reverted with this ES: "Will be happy to address corrections on talk page. Kindly edit in small bits so they are easier to review and discuss". What was wrong with any of my edit? Novaseminary (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you'll have no difficulty making your edits in smaller chunks. So that if there is any issue, they can be discussed. Large swaths containing multiple edits simultaneously make discussion difficult. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48F0:76A9:9553:3291 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But is there even a single thing you disagree with that we need to discuss? Reverting to revert is not appropriate. Why did you add back PERSONDATA with an unsourced, and possibly inaccurate birthday, for instance. Novaseminary (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could ask you the same question, couldn't I? If you have innocuous edits to make, do them individually. If they are constructive, there'll be no reason to address them. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48F0:76A9:9553:3291 (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And re reinstered a wikilink done as an inline EL, removing a reliable source I added that supported your new fact. I request that you self revert and then indictae what you disagree with. Novaseminary (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not only was your wikilink not reverted, but you'll note at this moment, you're the last person to have edited. And your wikilink remains intact. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48F0:76A9:9553:3291 (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was unclear. I added a cite to the official list of nominees and winners for the Oscars, not a wikilink, and you replaced it (through your reversion) to a misformed wikilink that looks like an inline external link. We do not revert here on WP unless we actuallly disagree with something. There is nothing wrong with minimizing the number of distinct edits one makes, . In fact, saving rather than "previewing" every little change leading to many tiny edits is annoying to many editors. I really did not think I did anything controversial. Please note at least one thing you think I did wrong. Or did you merely revert because it was me editing and you thought it was a big edit? Novaseminary (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncommon on WP to wholesale revert a large edit rather than make piecemeal revisions/corrections, if there are a number of issues to address in a single edit. That is what you presented and why the wholesale revert was correct. It's also why I requested that subsequent edits be made in smaller sections. I'll comply as well. You asked for areas that were controversial or wrong? Here's a short list: You wikilinked to four pages that do not exist. Including the non-existent page for Barney Burman and one for his collaborator, Joel Harlow. Then two more, a film festival, the Los Angeles Women's International Film Festival and a film distribution company, American World Pictures. You also reinserted a controversial edit on Tait's junior year that even another editor, not involved in the dispute, removed. You also reinserted your claim that Tait was out "much of the season", but failed to provide a source saying that. I have also clarified the "four weeks" reference to address your concerns and accurately reflect the source. So there was enough wrong and controversial with your single edit to justify revert. If you'd like to restore the PERSONDATA, I have no objection. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48F0:76A9:9553:3291 (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you'd like to restore the official list of nominees and winners for the Oscars, that's good too. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48F0:76A9:9553:3291 (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The redlinks were appropriate per WP:REDLINK, unless you don't think these companies and people meet WP:N. The edit about Tait's junior year was removed by another ed becuase you had removed the source so it appeared (and was at the time) unsourced (remember BLPREMOVE...). I also quoted the source that was already cited that said Tait missed much of the season. But so as to not confuse you, I will edit in smaller chunks here in the future. Novaseminary (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With this series of edits (apologies to other eds who find this style of multiple edits annoying), I step-by-step indicated and noted what I did and why. Per IP's objection, I did not reinsertthe redlinks. Apparently IP does not think the film festival Tait's film appeared at was notable for WP purposes, nor were the other Academy Award winners, nor was the company that secured distribution rights for a film Tait appeared in. I returned mention of his junior year suspension with a source that IP must have inadvertantly removed leading another ed to remove the sentence believing it to be unsourced. I also quoted and cited a source that said Tait missed most of his soph season, but it was not entirely because of his broken wrists (Tait "spent most of the season on the varsity bench nursing injuries to his hands, wrist, back and ankle.") Per source, he had other injuries. But I left in reference to wearing a cast for four weeks (noting it was expected, since no source confirms he actually did; I 'm not sure the four weeks really matters, but if IP wants it in, we need to be accurate at least). So, I either did not re-make, or did so with good reason, any part of the edit IP has objected to. Novaseminary (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per consensus with Novaseminary, I have added edits incrementally so they are easier to address. They consist largely of agreed upon material, all from an agreed upon RS, and other minor fixes like punctuation, grammar and syntax. So there should be no problem. I have also removed a statement because Novaseminary questioned its sourcing, and have replaced it with another statement and source that in hindsight are probably better anyway. I have also re-sourced a dead link issue and added from the new RS. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:31C0:6084:5975:D155 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make scores of small edits on my behalf. As I noted, I find that annoying, and so do others. One comprehensive edits is better. I actually review what was done rather than "undo"ing edits because they were too large. There is also no reason to discuss every edit before another editor objects. So, I don't think there is any different consensus here on this article on how to edit than elsewhere on WP.Novaseminary (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like the small edits you made, I reciprocated thinking we had an accommodation. But I'll return to editing normally. I've restored the Freddy v. Jason material. Frankly I was surprised to find it was no where in the article when there is so much about it all over the web. Also, "Early years" not "High school" is the appropriate first heading. In virtually every BLP I researched, that was the first biographical column in every one. So I see no reason to change that well-established precedent here. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:84DC:99FC:F52A:314 (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Early years" would be approrpiate if it were about his "early years." Headings should match the text in the section it heads (MOS:HEAD). The Canyon News posts are pretty clearly not RSs. If the facts can be sourced to RSs, great, add it sourced to an RS. I couldn't find one. The web also lists Tait as being several years youger than math and normal high school attendance age in the U.S. would indicate, but who knows. That's why we use RSs. Novaseminary (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Find me a precedent to make your point. I couldn't find one. Regardless of the information included, "Early years" is a standard BLP section. Also you're edit warring again. Let's not go down that road again. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:84DC:99FC:F52A:314 (talk) 04:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care much whether Tait's high school basketball material is headed "Early life," "Early years," "High school years," or whatever. The example in MOS is "Early life". Novaseminary (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. "Early life" not "Early years" is correct per MOS. I acknowledge I misspoke. And since you no longer seem to have an objection, I've changed it to "Early life". 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:84DC:99FC:F52A:314 (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Voorhees in Freddy vs. Jason

[edit]

Tait's work on the role of Jason Voorhees in Freddy vs. Jason is pretty well documented by dozens, if not hundreds, of various online sources. So it's odd that there is no mention of it in this article. There are several interviews, websites, blogs, press releases, fansites, photographs and articles that are available, providing both first & third person sources. So I've included a cross section of those sources in the BLP. Editors should be aware that attacking individual sources doesn't disqualify or change that these facts are already widely published. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:C8BE:A8CC:B65C:D3A8 (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases and fansites are not usually considered to be reliable sources and blogs can be problematic as well. If the information is in a published independent source with editorial oversight (+ a reputation for fact-checking & accuracy), then that would probably be a reliable source. Shearonink (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It is not documented in any RS that I have seen. That doesn't mean it is not true, just not documented sufficient to meet WP:V so far as I have seen. Of course, the fact that I have not seen it documented in an RS also doesn't mean that it is not documented in one not provided here, yet, either. But this fact should not be included until it can be sourced properly, and worded better ("known for..."). And even the non-RS coverage of this fact seems to indicate he only played the role in one scene while another stuntman played it throughout the movie (which is probably why it is not listed in RS lsitings of his work, but who knows). We need to meet WP:V even if the material is neutral or positive. That this fact appears in non-RSs is not sufficient. Along those lines, Tait's "birthday" being listed in December 1979 is also listed in several places online. But he would have had to graduate from high school at 15 and be a star high school basketball player at 12 for that to be true. It is not impossible, of course, but that fact likely would have been mentioned in one of the many articles discussing his basketball scoring, injuriesd, and suspensions. Novaseminary (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A variety of multiple, unrelated sources have all said the same thing: Tait worked on the role. Sources cited include more than one interview with the subject, an official facebook fan page, which is acceptable per WP:FACEBOOK, and an independent film company website. So some editors are using WP to debate these reliable sources. Instead, if you have sources directly refuting or denying Tait's involvement in the film, feel free to post those, then I'll add more sources as necessary. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:A449:F5CE:8339:FCA2 (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are press releases, fansites etc., that come nowhere near being RSs. The Facebook page appears to be his own facebook page, and should not support this fact per WP:SPS. And they do not say Tait played this "role" anyway, at most he played it for a few seconds in a feature length film. Regardless, we need RSs to establish this. Verifiability in RSs is the criteria, WP:V. We also need RSs to establsih the proper weigth for this per WP:UNDUE. The NY Times filmography for this person, for instance, gives this no mention. Two editors have disagreed with at least some of your sources. Please go to DR rather than inserting these sources again. If this was as significant as you seem to make it to be, it would be covered in an actual RS, I would think. Novaseminary (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already referred you to WP:FACEBOOK once, but since you're making the same argument, it's clear you never read it. It says: "The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source". So using the subject's official Facebook Fan Page is absolutely acceptable. And what is your specific objection to the very third party source you said you needed: the film company's own website! You haven't stated one. Not every fact requires the NYT to verify it. If you have an opposing source claiming Tait didn't play the role, where is it? Post it. Also, for the final time, your continued edit warring and disruptive editing on this BLP and other articles sourced in this BLP, like edits here, here, here and here are not constructive. You have been asked several times, by several editors to stop, but still you refuse. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:A449:F5CE:8339:FCA2 (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just me who disagrees with you. At least three editors other than me have now reverted various versions of this in the last few hours. If you think a particular source meets WP:RS, list it here or at WP:RSN and explain how it meets WP:RS. Novaseminary (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you reliably misstated the facts. It is you who have reverted those three other editors. And more before them. But here and and here, you even reverted the admin who reviewed the BLP for semi-protection, because of you! Wow. Not to mention all the other editors who, over a very long time, have repeatedly asked you to stop your disruptive editing. So your problem is not with me. Nor is it just over your current disruptive behavior. Frankly, you long ago exhausted every reasonable attempt to WP:AGF. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:A449:F5CE:8339:FCA2 (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. I'm not the admin who reviewed the article for semi-protection, I'm the editor who asked for semi-protection--and not because of Novaseminary, but because of you. Nova, your edits are still wrong, by the way: BLP trivia needs to go. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification on your admin status. But you say you asked for semi-protect because of me? Why? You didn't say. As for the Jason issue, I'm happy to collaborate with you as I am with any editor, Novaseminary included. But when you remove a fact with multiple sources, when even more sources exist, then the issue isn't the fact. I'd appreciate a discussion on what you see as the problem with the sources so we can reach a reasonable compromise. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3533:DED5:47AA:B44 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my issue is that we have a BLP for a barely notable person which seems to be used to promote said person. A BLP in which sites like the subject's Facebook and ridiculous media like this here are used to "verify" important information. And a BLP where one determined editor has managed to wikilawyer on the talk page for 100,000 bytes. Cheers. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so let's clear the air on what appears to be your assumption. First, I'm not the subject of the BLP and have zero connection to him. But you've also accused me of wikilawyering. Because I'm trying to improve the article and keep it free from POV? That's ridiculous. The article has been scrubbed of anything even remotely promotional. Even Novaseminary, agreed with that. You've got a problem with some of the sources? Surely as an admin you could find a way to just say that without the vitriol, right? Because there are tons of sources. I used a film company's website to say the same thing. Was there a problem with it? Also used another published interview. Problem there? You never said. You just reverted based on 2 sources you mentioned. There were 5! I even said I was/am willing to find more. But nothing warrants your hostility. So if that's all you're contributing? Cheers. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3533:DED5:47AA:B44 (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies properly removed mention of Tait playing Jason in the main place the the IP added it (with this edit) but one sentence ("He played the role of "Jason" in the final scene of Freddy vs. Jason.") was left in the "Creature character roles" section with a reference to this website. In light of the the source and fact having been removed elsewhere (along with other non-RSs), was this left in inadvertently? I don't think this website is an RS and that the fact and source should be removed. Novaseminary (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Douglas Tait (actor). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 08:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Douglas Tait (actor). 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:

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) 12:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Douglas_Tait_(actor)&oldid=1233709533"