Talk:Gil Birmingham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Career section edit questions from Robertspr[edit]

(continued from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertspr) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinervaK (talkcontribs) 07:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit on the career section was to clarify language and to remove duplicate material that is given below in the filmography. There were also some inaccuracies, stating that the subject had been "cast opposite" Diana Ross in the video, when in fact, he was one of several bit players, and using promotional language like "starring in" when the subject is not a top-billed player.

I know that this is a bit of steep learning curve for you (Robertspr) -- I had trouble with it myself when I first started editing here (and still make mistakes, as evidenced by our recent dispute). Wikipedia articles are meant to be factual reports and not "color pieces" to promote their subject, such as personal websites and PR material would be. I know that it's tempting to use promotional language, since you have Gil as a client, but that isn't what is called "neutral viewpoint" here, and as such, it will get edited, by me or by someone else. I really urge you to read the articles that Wikhead pointed out on your talk page, and familiarize yourself with the Wikiculture before doing any more editing -- it will really lead to far less frustration, believe me! Click on "help" over on the right, and follow your nose. The Five Pillars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars) is also a good place to start.

I realize now that this is probably part of why you were so upset at me before. You obviously didn't understand how Wikipedia works and felt like I was singling GB out for persecution. Please know that is not the case. This is just one of several articles I am working on in the context of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas project here. I am simply trying to make it fit within Wikipedia guidelines so that it won't get bombed by other editors.

Thanks -- MinervaK (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, the biographies of living persons page is full of really good info. Highly recommended. MinervaK (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
As mentioned on the user-talk page that this thread carries-over from, I'm well aware that some sort of response is expected from me... but even though I've attempted several times to compose what's on my mind, my written words have simply not summed it up properly. While looking at the big picture here, one may very quickly identify this (at least in part) as a content dispute between two writers, which is something I personally never get involved with if/when possible. Having only been aware of this article and its subject for less than a week, I think it would be unfair of me to even assume that I could accurately pose as a valid decision maker or mediator as such. I might suggest placing a {{COI}} banner at page-top to attract the attention of others, but if COIish content has already been removed, the banner might be a bit pointless. In my opinion, the current version of this article is somewhat of a "choppy read", and could really use a good copy-edit for sentence structure and flow. I could probably deal that part rather efficiently on my own, but remain a bit hesitant to edit knowing that a content dispute lurks in the wing. Feedback from additional editors is what's most needed here.  -- WikHead (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, or trying to, WikHead. The alleged COI material has been removed by the above editor. Unlike the previous version, this version does include information that is relevant to his career. Because of the perceived COI issues, to make changes or have further dialog would be moot, as any opinion we would have on this subject would be ignored or invalidated. The important original research issue and misinformation has been resolved, so we will be moving on and no longer comment on or seek corrections for this page. Thank you again WikHead for your comments and thoughtful consideration. Robertspr (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Robertspr (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed that the OR research dispute has been resolved -- no fear of it resurfacing, I don't think. I'm working on another article right now but can do some copy-edit here in a couple of weeks. Thanks MinervaK (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gil Birmingham. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)