Talk:Tommy Wiseau: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
GullibleKit (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
:::I apologize for editing without consensus, but given the fact that there is some sort of organized off-wiki effort to attack Tommy Wiseau's character (according to [[User:DMacks|the administrator]] who locked the article), I'm replacing it with the proposed version to take out the rule violation. I'd appreciate more input on this so that we can have a version reached by consensus. [[Special:Contributions/71.101.95.236|71.101.95.236]] ([[User talk:71.101.95.236|talk]]) 07:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
:::I apologize for editing without consensus, but given the fact that there is some sort of organized off-wiki effort to attack Tommy Wiseau's character (according to [[User:DMacks|the administrator]] who locked the article), I'm replacing it with the proposed version to take out the rule violation. I'd appreciate more input on this so that we can have a version reached by consensus. [[Special:Contributions/71.101.95.236|71.101.95.236]] ([[User talk:71.101.95.236|talk]]) 07:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::As you misread the admin I'm going to revert. The article was locked against vandalism from ED, that did not include the portion you removed. [[User:Jarkeld|Jarkeld]] ([[User talk:Jarkeld|talk]]) 09:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
::::As you misread the admin I'm going to revert. The article was locked against vandalism from ED, that did not include the portion you removed. [[User:Jarkeld|Jarkeld]] ([[User talk:Jarkeld|talk]]) 09:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::I'm not aware of anything at ED, but users on TGWTG forum are urging each other to update wikipedia in favor of Doug Walker on a copyright dispute. Vandalism needs to be kept out, but the article must conform to [[Wikipedia:BLP|rules]] for biographies of living persons. I interpreted vandalism against the biography to be an attack on the person, but that's not really all that important now and the article must reflect wikipedia policy. Please assume good faith. I am reinstating the change until we can have more discussion on what would be an acceptable consensus that does not break [[Wikipedia:NPOV|NPOV]]. [[Special:Contributions/71.101.95.236|71.101.95.236]] ([[User talk:71.101.95.236|talk]]) 13:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:09, 23 July 2010
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
Please add
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Biography: Actors and Filmmakers Start‑class ![]() | ||||||||||||
|
Attack on the Nostalgia Critic
Is it worth mentioning his attack on the Nostalgia Critic's review of his movie, The Room yet? Pulling it for copyright infringement. Quite an achievement considering it was on Blip!!!--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is. I mean he's famous for the room, a pretty aweful movie, and very little else. he's made a good sized wave at least on the internet with this stunt. Gaurdro (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- However this is not a forum for discussing the merits of his movies or internet wars. Regarding the article, the following statement is not substantiated by its sources:
- Wiseau became a target for internet satirists after two reviews of The Room by the Nostalgia Critic and Obscurus Lupa were pulled down due to a claimed copyright infringement despite fair use as a review and parody.
- The two citations given are video links to "The Tommy Wiseau Show", a satirical sketch by Doug Walker (aka The Nostalgia Critic) impersonating Wiseau, and "Brad and Jerrid Watch The Room", a satirical review by two of Walker's collaborators. The first issue is that neither of these sources fall under acceptable sources for a biographical article. Even if these sources were fine, they only substantiate the part "Wiseau became a target for internet satirists". In particular, the claim "despite fair use" is a pretty blatant violation of neutrality. For now I suggest the following alternative statement:
- After filing several claims of copyright violation against reviewers of The Room, Wiseau became a target for internet satirists.
- and then leaving the citations as-is. Does this sound like a reasonable consensus? 71.101.95.236 (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think that's a reasonable wording, but fair use is a simple legal term that does cover rights to both review and parody, so I'm wondering if you could clarify your concerns on neutrality, cheers. GullibleKit (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I apologize for editing without consensus, but given the fact that there is some sort of organized off-wiki effort to attack Tommy Wiseau's character (according to the administrator who locked the article), I'm replacing it with the proposed version to take out the rule violation. I'd appreciate more input on this so that we can have a version reached by consensus. 71.101.95.236 (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- As you misread the admin I'm going to revert. The article was locked against vandalism from ED, that did not include the portion you removed. Jarkeld (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of anything at ED, but users on TGWTG forum are urging each other to update wikipedia in favor of Doug Walker on a copyright dispute. Vandalism needs to be kept out, but the article must conform to rules for biographies of living persons. I interpreted vandalism against the biography to be an attack on the person, but that's not really all that important now and the article must reflect wikipedia policy. Please assume good faith. I am reinstating the change until we can have more discussion on what would be an acceptable consensus that does not break NPOV. 71.101.95.236 (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- As you misread the admin I'm going to revert. The article was locked against vandalism from ED, that did not include the portion you removed. Jarkeld (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- However this is not a forum for discussing the merits of his movies or internet wars. Regarding the article, the following statement is not substantiated by its sources:
Categories:
- Biography articles of living people
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Low-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Actors and filmmakers work group articles
- Wikipedia requested photographs of actors and filmmakers
- Wikipedia requested photographs of people
- WikiProject Biography articles