Jump to content

Talk:John Gordillo

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

worth keeping?

[edit]

When you discount the copyvio from http://www.spoonfed.co.uk/artist/comedy-1524/john-gordillo-11257/ this article is hardly more than a collection of quotes and links. It could certainly do with some fleshing out, if this guy is actually notable enough to get an article, but not by the copy-and-paste method this time... Flapdragon (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Gordillo. 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) 21:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Gordillo. 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) 20:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious editing

[edit]

The recent edits made by FelicityWiki have been engineered to assassinate his character by:

-downplaying his achievements -hashing his website link so that no one can directly access his website -removing references to his "Podcast For Kel" series

These edits are a hatchet job, not hard to discover who this is if you do a web search.

Moderators should restore the page to the previous edit before the FelicityWiki edits as it's a transparent attempt to defame his character. Comedymod (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, no personal attacks please. Assume good faith of other editors.
Reviewing the edits as noted, the rationale provided in the edit summaries seems to be valid; several of the phrases removed or adjusted were grandiose and unencyclopedic, and need better citations to be appropriate for inclusion. I don't see any indication that a podcast was removed.
Also, the website linked wasn't touched by the editor in question, and doesn't exist - it goes to a Wix parking page.
Overall, this reads neutrally to me, as an encylopedia article should. (eta) Having said that, any article is open to improvement, and I'm sure others can find ways to improve this constructively. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly let me disclose that I have a conflict of interest, but allow me to rebut your points.
Firstly, his website is not johngordillo.co.uk#!, it is http://www.johngordillo.co.uk. This website is easily verifiable, is active and can be accessed. This should be corrected.
Secondly, the rationale behind each edit is half baked.
"Gordillo's solo work includes the 2009 production of Fucknonomics which received mixed reviews." - There's no citation to suggest this has a mixed reception. In fact, in the Herald article that was cited, it says "One critically acclaimed comedy show, John Gordillo's F***onomics, was so excruciatingly unfunny I was desperate to leave after five minutes." - The article explicitly says that the show was critically acclaimed, it's just that this particular reviewer did not enjoy this show but suggests that show merited a visit due to its acclaim at the time.
The Chortle article, also cited, displays cherry-picking of the highest order where it quotes the show was "on potentially hack, misogynistic ground", however on the very next paragraph it says: But Gordillo’s continual self-deprecation makes him an endearing, empathic character rather than moaning male. As well as confessing that he fully acknowledges he is punching above his weight in this particular relationship, he also emphasises his wimpy demeanour - particularly in comparison to his macho, ball-scratching Spanish father." This is also a 3 star review which doesn't necessarily make this a bad review, but in the wiki article it is presented as such.
Cheap shots at the Defenceless did not received mixed reviews. The three reviews cited are at least 3 stars and above. There is no evidence to suggest this had a mixed critical reception.
I do understand that we should not engage in personal attacks, however, I believe these edits were made with malicious intent and not with parity in mind. Comedymod (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you believe that there is any malicious intent? You can't say that you understand that we should not engage in personal attacks and then make a personal attack in the same sentence. It looks very much like you are only here to promote Gordillo rather than to create a neutral encyclopedia article. Those efforts are a spectacular own goal, for reasons that you will understand if you have any sense of humour. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have just tried the URL http://www.johngordillo.co.uk mentioned and it gives an error with "Looks Like This Domain Isn't Connected To A Website Yet!". I has a look at http://www.johngordillo.co.uk at the Wayback Machine which has captures looking like https://web.archive.org/web/20190630190157if_/http://www.johngordillo.co.uk/noflashhtml indicating that there is a Flash based web site until 7 December 2021, about 1 year since the last capture, when it gives the same Wix error https://web.archive.org/web/20211207122921/http://johngordillo.co.uk/ that the live site does.
As the site no longer seems to exist I am inclined to remove the URL from the page and info box.
Gusfriend (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The website does not work for me, either. Cullen328 (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did find [1] though. Cullen328 (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wasn't having any luck finding something reasonable to link to but I have updated the URLs to johngordillo.square.site. Gusfriend (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder, considering some of the concerns are around the phrasing regarding reviews and reception, if we really need any of that in the article anyhow. For example, we could simply state "Gordillo's solo work includes the 2009 production of Fucknonomics" and include the three review citations, or just one to indicate that the show indeed was staged at that time. We could then go on with "His show about his father, Divide and Conga, was staged at the Edinburgh Fringe, and his show Cheap Shots at the Defenceless toured internationally." with proper citations in place for each. Thus we remove the need to interpret the reviews entirely. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so sure I read the three reviews of Fucknonomics, and I think the word "mixed" is perfectly apt. Cullen328 (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The challenge here is whether there's a consensus way of interpreting the reviews. One person's "mixed" can be another person's "boffo smash" depending on how you view it. If they're the bone of contention, one would suggest just dump them to reduce stress. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Gordillo&oldid=1204805291"