Jump to content

Talk:Miles Fisher/Archive 1

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

Copypaste violation

Hi. I came here today to assess the article for WP Biography. However, I am unable to do so, due to a prime paragraph of information being a blatant copy and paste from the Internet Movie Database at this location. If any interested person would like to edit the article to remove this violation, and generally clean it up to suit, re-list it at WP Biography Assessment Requests once more, and someone will be along to give it a rating. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: See my note below, I removed all the IMDB stuff in favor of cites to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Even if there had not been a copyvio question, it's still preferable to use other sources than IMDB if possible. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted

There are a few issues to resolve.

Question of Nobility - Miles Fisher's Wikipedia page has been online for many months and it was never an issue until just a few days ago. Still, many people continue to look at his page proving that its information has implicit value. Moreover, millions of people have seen his performances, particularly in Superhero Movie (it was covered so significantly that a lengthy article was written on his performance in specific in wikinews article by other members of the wiki commuity - http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Tom_Cruise_spoofed_in_film_%27Superhero_Movie%27). I do not think this article should be deleted on the grounds of a lack of "nobility" of the subject.

Question of Copy Violation - The claim that the text here is nearly identical to that found on Miles Fisher's IMDB page is undisputed. Nonetheless, it is written by the same person. Both authors, on Wiki and on IMDB are "Erwin Fletcher". It can therefor not be plagiarized, as it was written by the same person. Furthermore, the Wiki article has been updated and improved upon since, with many added new external links, and significant restructuring of each paragraph with additional information listed. I do not think this article should be deleted on the grounds of a Copy Violation.

Finally, to quote from the Wikipedia guidelines:

"A topic is deemed encyclopedic if it is "notable"[38] in the Wikipedia jargon; i.e., if it has received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources (i.e., mainstream media or major academic journals) that are independent of the subject of the topic. Second, Wikipedia must expose knowledge that is already established and recognized.[39] In other words, it must not present, for instance, new information or original works."

Google has a myriad of hits on the subject at question. Articles have been written about him in Variety, New York Post, Dallas Morning News, Harvard Crimson. He has been featured on various Television programing. This article is exposing knowledge on him that is already established but giving the subject's biography greater breadth and clarity.

Unless there are other claims against the worth of this article, I advocate a removal of the warning banner at the top. Many thanks. --Erwinfletcher (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

IMDB info removed from article

I removed the IMDB info from this article. IMDB isn't the best WP:RS source when there are better sources out there for the same information as well as other information from secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The replacement sources you've dumped in their place are not much better, as it's clear from the context and headlines that they're simply a long series of passing mentions you've scraped together to disguise the lack of significant sourcing. And the tone certainly seems indistinguishable from that of a press release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CalendarWatcher (talk • contribs)
It appears that the consensus from the end result of the AfD discussion reads differently than that assessment. I am sorry you feel that way, but I have worked quite hard on this article indeed and I feel it reflects a neutral note and uses sources appropriately. Cirt (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Various tags

Regarding [1] - Please explain precisely where this article needs additional citations - literally every single sentence is cited to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Please also explain the {{advertisement}} tag - by showing alternate viewpoints as represented in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Literally every single source is, from context, trivial. And the 'advertisement' tag is self-explanatory--this article reads like a press release intended to promote the future career of this obscure actor. Wikipedia is intended to document fame, not create it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you cite any WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources which bring forth a different viewpoint in any part of the article than that currently represented? If not, then the tone of the article simply reflects that in discussion about the actor that is out there already in independent sources. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the {{advert}} tag because no sources were brought forth of a different viewpoint to cite in the article, and after extensive searches in multiple databases I could not find any of a critical nature of this individual. Cirt (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Promotional tone has nothing whatsoever to do with 'different viewpoints' or criticism, nor do the triviality of the references. I'm restoring the tags until these points are addressed instead of arguing irrelevancies. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see the below comment by the admin that closed the AFD, Davewild (talk · contribs). Personally (and this is only my opinion) I cannot see the basis of the refimprove tag which is for articles which need more references to verify the content of the article. In this article I am struggling to find anything which is not referenced to a reliable source somewhere in the article allowing us to verify the content. -- Could you therefore please remove the {{refimprove}} tag, and then we can discuss perhaps if you have some suggestions as to how to improve the tone of the article, perhaps as Davewild (talk · contribs) says minimizing the emphasis of those positive reviews? Cirt (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: Both tags were removed by a third-party editor as "tendentious". I asked the user on their talk page if they wanted to comment here, but I got a response back that the existing comments here on the talk page were sufficient. Cirt (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Some comments re: closure of AFD and above tags discussion

Firstly regarding my closure of the AFD, the standard for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources, after looking at the sources before closing the AFD, and once again after being approached about the closure, I was persuaded that there was sufficient coverage. While many of the sources individually could not be described as significant, the combination of that coverage with the more significant coverage provided in particular in the 2001 Newsday article carries the article over the notability threshold for me. This coverage was enough to write a quite reasonable length article without any sign of original research that I could detect which for me has always a major objective of notability guidelines.

However it is not mainly my opinion that matters as the closing admins job is to judge the consensus, based on policy, of the AFD. Looking at the AFD the opinions that favoured not keeping the article all took place before additional sources were brought forward in the AFD and before the article was rewritten with sources. When judging consensus in the discussion I gave lesser weight to the earlier opinions as they were talking about a version before the rewrite and Dlohcierekim's argument at least was addressed by the rewrite which certainly contains an assertion of notability now (the best actor award). After the rewrite two other editors commented on the AFD and agreed that what was in the article after the rewrite was sufficient in their eyes to establish notability. Given this I feel I had no choice but to close the AFD as a keep. Based on the article and the discussion on the AFD I do not see how I could possibly have closed it as delete as there was no overiding policy reason to allow me to ignore any of the keep opinions. You could argue for a no consensus or a relist but given what I have said above I felt there was sufficient consensus and sufficient comment made to judge consensus.

Finally about the two tags which have been added to the article. There is nothing to stop any editor who feels there are concerns about the article from adding the tags regardless of whether an AFD took place. However it would be good (and necessary really if they are challenged) if specific reasons for the tags could be provided here on the talk page. Personally (and this is only my opinion) I cannot see the basis of the refimprove tag which is for articles which need more references to verify the content of the article. In this article I am struggling to find anything which is not referenced to a reliable source somewhere in the article allowing us to verify the content. Regarding the advert tag, yes most of the content is positive but then so are the sources and to avoid original research we should follow the sources, the only area where perhaps the tone could be shifted slightly is in the career section where the coverage of the different positive reviews might be reduced a bit as we do seem to be including quite a few of them (understandably really during an AFD where establishing notability is the aim). As I said above this is only my opinion and would be interested in hearing more about CalendarWatcher's reasoning behind the tags.

If you still feel my closure of the AFD was incorrect you are, of course, able to take it to Deletion Review but as I have said above I stand by my closure and think it was correct. (apologies for the length of the comments above but I wanted to explain my reasoning as best I can) Davewild (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This article has had a GA Review which was successful and the article was passed as a WP:GA. Comments from the reviewer are here: Talk:Miles Fisher/GA1. Cirt (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

New source, personal website

[2] - Erwinfletcher (talk · contribs) added info sourced to http://www.richardhcollins.com/family_background.htm - which appears to be someone's personal website. Not acceptable as an WP:RS, certainly not in a WP:BLP. Cirt (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

well, id say 95% of the article is already not particularly noteworthy. you can ask yourself if this article would exist in an encyclopedia or just on a resume or facebook page.--89.247.11.243 (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The multiple secondary sources that have covered the subject would disagree. Cirt (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal Advertising

Cirt, please explain to me how it is vandalism to remove a portion of an article that serves only to state that a particular blogger thinks that a character played by this actor is an "overly charming pot dealer"? What does that have to do with anything? Or what the relevance of that same blogger claiming that "countless fans" (who?) think something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.59.31 (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It is reception of the role. -- Cirt (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What is this garbage?

One paragraph in and I already counted several statements that need CITATIONS. I recommend this article be removed. 121.220.110.245 (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEADCITE. -- Cirt (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Role on "The Cleaner" removed?

He had a recurring role on A&E Network's television series The Cleaner, portraying a rookie police officer named Kenneth Herman.

Not sure why this was removed? -- Cirt (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was inadvertent. I was begining a clean-up of excessive puffery and missed that bit. Apologies.--Scott Mac 23:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology. I appreciate it very much. -- Cirt (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Listed as a Good Article

Can someone double check whether or not this page deserves Good Article status? Some of the info is redundant and I don't believe the subject classifies as notable. Hitherescotty (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Miles Fisher/GA1. Nymf hideliho! 05:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Miles Fisher.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Miles Fisher.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Miles Fisher.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Miles Fisher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miles Fisher. 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) 21:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Miles Fisher. 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) 02:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miles_Fisher/Archive_1&oldid=1216382133"