Talk:Don Murphy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:07, 13 April 2007 editHagermanBot (talk \| contribs)95,722 editsm 76.173.228.23 didn't sign: "→Tarantino Vs. Murphy at the Ago: "← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:50, 6 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,217,045 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WPBiography}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(402 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{NOINDEX}}{{Old XfD multi
	{{WPBiography\|living=yes\|class=\|importance=}}
			\| date = 23 March 2008
			\| result = '''Nomination withdrawn'''
			\| link = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Don_Murphy_(3rd_nomination)
			\| date2 = 5 September 2007
			\| result2 = '''Keep'''
			\| link2 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Don_Murphy_(2nd_nomination)
			\| date3 = 21 June 2007
			\| result3 = '''Keep'''
			\| link3 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Don_Murphy
			\| small =
			\| collapse =
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=Start\|living=yes\|listas=Murphy, Don\|
			{{WikiProject Biography\|a&e-work-group=yes\|a&e-priority=Low\|filmbio-work-group=yes\|filmbio-priority=Low}}
			}}
			{{archives\|search=yes}}
			{{Broken anchors\|links=
			* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Tarantino's Natural Born Killers) ]. <!-- {"title":"Tarantino's Natural Born Killers","appear":null,"disappear":{"revid":1184038583,"parentid":1184034937,"timestamp":"2023-11-07T23:55:57Z","replaced_anchors":{"Untitled 1930s gangster project":"Untitled 1930s-set gangster film","Untitled medieval project":"Untitled medieval film"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
			}}

			== External links modified ==
	==Bribery?==
	The link saying ''Murphy promotes bribery of Misplaced Pages administrators.'' is a dead link. Apparently that particular message thread was removed. <nowiki>http://www.d13satellite.com/donmurphy/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17058</nowiki> was the original thread, but I don't believe it is currently archived. --] 04:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	==Links==
	Murphy himself CONFIRMS his upcoming films on this link http://www.donmurphy.net/board/showthread.php?p=864912#post864912

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	Why does anyone feel it is okay to delete one of them and leave the other three? Also, since the film is about this guy Gronowski, why is he allowed to edit the item at all? ] 03:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090328131654/http://cinema.usc.edu/about/events/event_20090319.htm to http://cinema.usc.edu/about/events/event_20090319.htm
	:You are correct. The other 3 should be removed until a ] is provided. Also, since the article is about this guy Don Murphy, why is he allowed to make up things to talk about on his forums and post them here at all? --] 03:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	:::Well first off, Murphy is not allowed to edit his own page. Nor do I believe he is. Secondly, and more importantly, Gronowski needs to be banned. Are you on that? ] 03:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	::::Even more importantly, you need to stop vandalising pages. That includes creating new attack pages. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 03:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
	:::::Well please cite these alleged attack pages correctly. The reality is that you are editing subject matter that involves you.] 03:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

			== Add stuff ==
	::::::You should know what I am talking about, seeing as you created the page. For reference, this is the (soon to be deleted) attack page: ]. I am allowed to edit vandalism about myself, seeing as it is vandalism. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 03:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

			Murphy producing reboot of one of his films; pls help me to add
	::Son, this is not the correct talk page for that, and also it is not an attack page- it is a well cited mention of a documentary film in the works.] 03:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
			Source: https://deadline.com/2022/05/league-of-extraordinary-gentlemen-reboot-in-works-at-20th-hulu-1235026114/ <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	Well if it is a documentary about me, I sure haven't been contacted. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 03:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

	:::Well what makes you think you HAVE to be? I have seen many docs about douchebags and the douches are not expected to cooperate]

	:::As much as Mr. Murphy annoys me, I am sure he has the common decency to tell me he is making a documentary about me. Enough about this on here, If you wish to further this discussion, contact me by email. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 03:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

	==Inaccuracies==
	This article is inaccurate, Murphy disputes the information on his site, and that must be valid since they use a citation of the site, already and anyway - violated BLP {{unsigned\|PanFordThunder\|02:07, March 20 2007 (UTC)}}
	:Can you discuss specific inaccuracies? --] 02:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

	Yessir- Murphy on his own website disputes the accuracy of the Tarantino story. User Gronowski hypocritically uses the Biskind letter from Murphy's website to support the story, yet on the Jane Hamsher entry user proclaimed that Murphy's personal site carries no validity. In looking at the history of this entry, you as well seem to deny what Murphy claims about his upcoming films. Yet Murphy SPECIFICALLY denies the information herein. Thus the Tarantino incident, clearly being added by User Gronowski as part of his personal animus/feud with Murphy, is in violation of strict BLP. ] 02:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	:I have no position on anything in the article - my role has simply been to block sockpuppets of a banned user. As for the issue at hand, can you give a link to Murphy's version of the incident? If there is a legitimate dispute as to the facts of the situation, the preferable way to report it is, "Magazine XYZ says _________. Murphy disputes that, saying ________." That way, we take a ]. --] 02:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

	I accept your neutrality sir. I also believe that User Gronowski is using the forum for his own disputes. That's wrong isn't it? I mean if you look at the history, this had been on here back in December (the Tarantino stuff) when under strict BLP it was removed. User Gronowski knows that and added it anyway. ] 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

	:I am not using the incident to further a personal feud with Mr. Murphy, a feud which I wish would blow over. I merely find the incident fascinating, and decided to document it. It was removed "under strict BLP" by a user who offered no explanation of how it violated BLP. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 02:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	::The whole article needs expansion. If this is a minor incident in Murphy's life (I'm assuming it is), it probably shouldn't be the most prominent section of the article. --] 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::ColScott, one of Murphy's other socks, liked to use legalistic intensifiers for Misplaced Pages policies once he was told enough times that they existed. "Strict BLP" was one of his favorites. The absolute ''ne plus ultra'' was that ColScott himself , which he later , either obfuscating or unaware that he himself had added it to the article. Murphy was particularly upset with certain stories on E! Online (I think the bit where the judge awarded him $1 in damages galls him to this day), and from what I can tell, lawyer-lettered that site to get them to remove the articles. It's been entertaining, to say the least, but I wish he'd go back to making movies, all the same. -- ] \| ] 03:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

	:It's more important to focus on the desired outcome, rather than who made the edit. I've looked at the passage and reviewed the sources. Is there a specific fact that Mr. Murphy disputes? It looks like everything in the article matches up with the sources given. --] 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

	Big Dt- again I assure you this guy Gronowski has been obsessed with Murphy for Months. Here is Murphy complaining about him in NOVEMBER---http://www.donmurphy.net/board/showthread.php?t=15553
	Fact is this is not a major event- is not listed on his IMDB profile, is denied by him personally but Gronowski continues to make his life hell. LOOK at all the malicious edits. ] 02:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

	...What the shloo? None of the other comments in the thread are about me "harassing" Mr. Murphy. It seems that that was a recently added post to an old archived thread. I also never edited this page until the 18 of February. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 02:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

	...Please in all honesty answer the following....
	1- Have you been fighting with Murphy since 2006 ( the evidence is posted)?
	2- why the replies should matter- someone derailed his thread
	3- You acknoeldge above that there IS a feud (you wish would stop) so why are you editing his page against Wiki standards?
	4- Do you deny telling NextOFKynn that you have monitored Murphy's website for months?
	5- Do you deny posting claims about him bribing officials etc?

	WHAT HAS HE DONE TO DESERVE THIS BEHAVIOR?

	bIGdt PLEASE HELP. ] 02:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

	#No, not to my knowledge. If he is ColScott, then I have been in conflict with him, yes.
	#The replies matter because nobody seems to flock to the bait of agreeing with Mr. Murphy, as most of his stooges do.
	#Yes, there is a feud. I am not against Mr. Murphy in general, but some edits that may or may not be him are rather offensive and don't make me exactly happy. I don't try to do anything to escalate the feud. I am editing his page because I feel like, against no Wiki standards that I know of.
	#No, I have monitored Mr. Murphy's website for various reasons. One of them being I like Transformers and the other being that he often announces his attempts to buy a Misplaced Pages admin or vandalise Misplaced Pages on his message boards.
	#Yes, I deny that I have posted claims that he has bribed officials. I have posted claims that he '''attempted''' to bribe officials based on posts on his message board and personal screenshots of those posts. These were posted on the Administrator's noticeboard. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 03:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

	:PanFordThunder, what Murphy has done is act like a spoiled child with ] of his Misplaced Pages article. I can hardly believe it possible that a 40+ professional with a successful career would trouble himself to make up sockpuppets with puerile twists on the names of Misplaced Pages editors, but I am left with no other logical conclusion. ("The politics of the university are so intense because the stakes are so low", indeed.) Murphy claims "strict BLP" for his own entry to keep out a neutral description of a fight ''which is detailed in an article on his own website''. (I assume he keeps it there because it makes Hamsher look bad, but I just don't know.) Meanwhile, Murphy/ColScott posts ridiculous claims against other people that haven't even been reported anywhere once, and acts paranoid that other editors have some sort of personal reason for editing his article, made ] against another editor. There's something about this whole thing he can't stand. I had to drop it for a while due to the simple fact that, like other editors, I have a real life -- something that doesn't seem to apply to Murphy. Really, the man's completely obsessed, and probably jealous that Hamsher is getting lionized by the New York Times and all, while he's stuck making movies out of cartoon characters. But I can only speculate. It's getting him rich, but apparently that's not enough. Given other high-profile attempts to game Misplaced Pages in recent months, it's a shame that this activity hasn't been exposed in the press. Ultimately, such activity must be watched closely, and Murphy doesn't seem to realize that the more he steps up the behavior, the more eyes are brought to bear on his edits and this article. -- ] \| ] 03:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

	BigDT- you have to be the bigger man here- Gronowski ADMITS to not being neutral and is obsessed with Murphy. The article violates BLP which JIMMY holds up as the most important guideline we have. As far as Dhartung is concerned, I don't know what to say- does he think the press takes Misplaced Pages seriously? All I see is an annoyed person (Murphy) mocking the system for taking itself too seriously, and people like Gronowski and Dhartung proving him correct. Come on DT, respect BLP. ] 04:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Ok ... if you or Mr. Murphy have a dispute with Phil, please see ]. Regardless of who made the edits, is there a specific problem with the passage itself? In other words, pretend that it was added by some other user - how should it be changed? --] 04:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Good point. What's he annoyed about, anyway? The fight with QT was years ago, he says they've made up. Nothing has been reported in this article that was not sourced to major media including TIME, EW, or E!. It's appeared in biographies of Tarantino. Why shouldn't we say any of that? I really want to know. Considering that his sock ColScott thought that his ex-partner's article should be as full of negative material as possible, it's very amusing to hear protests such as "respect BLP". -- ] \| ] 05:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

	:: TO BigDt- the point is clear. He says clearly that the fight didn't happen. IT IS NOT referenced under Tarantino's entry the guy who hit him supposedly nor Hamsher's, whose book supposedly was responsible. It is not, clearly, even a minor event much less a major event in the guy's life. Yet here it is PUT THERE by a guy who admits to being in a feud with Murphy. That is NOT what Wales would have us do. WE MUST err on the side of protecting the rights of BLP. The guy himself says it didn't happen - personally, on the very website that Gronowski cites, donmurphy.net. Therefore if we take one thing as evidence we should take all things.
	To Dhartung- unless you have evidence, you should not allege things you know nothing about. Was ColScott Murphy or am I Murphy? Maybe I am Gronowski?The E reference was removed at Murphy's request- they took it down because it was untrue. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE NEUTRAL DHARTUNG- instead you are being a laughingstock alleging things you cannot prove and acting as if the BLP does not apply here. {I notice in a complete reread that whoever was fighting with Gronowski and Kynn on the Hamsher page WAS NOT ALLOWED TO USE DONMURPHY.NET AS SUPPORT- YET HERE IT IS}
	To: Gronowski- to be clear- you have cited that the www.donmurphy.net board is a VIABLE and acceptable source. Therefore, if anything of relevance that can be found there can therefore be used as part of the article. It is ITSELF a source as per your usage. ] 06:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Hmm, for a recent arrival to Misplaced Pages, PanFordThunder (last 24 hrs), you show an exceptionally detailed knowledge of this situation. I wonder why that might be? Again there is the all caps, again with the namecalling, again there is the one-way interpretation of BLP. It's pretty clear where you get your talking points. Shall we play Checkuser again? In any case, BLP doesn't mean "check with the guy and see what he says", it means source all assertions. The assertions are sourced. If you -- whoops, I mean your pal -- disputes what happened, we can source a counterclaim. (Here I thought you were going to play this out a bit longer, but I guess you don't have the patience.) By the way, in Talk pages, I can bring up whatever the hell I want; it's not a "source" when it's on a Talk page. (Nice feint.) -- ] \| ] 08:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

	--DarkTounge- it is easy to read (at least for those educated) and catch up. All caps are used for emphasis in the english language which is what version of Misplaced Pages this is. There is NO INTERPRETATION of BLP- it is strict and unforgiving. No one said you had to check- but in this case KNOWING THE GUY says it is untrue how dare you assert otherwise? And no, in talk pages you can get sured for libel just like you can anywhere in the internet and Jimmy will not protect you. {and I checked- if calling you a laughingstock means calling you a name, I can only be sure that it is NOT the worst name anyone has called you today} Seriously, man, don't speak without evidence- you sound insane. ] 08:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Ruh roh. I'm being sured for sure. -- ] \| ] 09:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

	I make a typo and you laugh. Christ how sad. Anyway, I fixed all elements of the alleged attack and still you deleted? Why?] 09:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	:No. First you . Then you . Then you . What exactly are you trying to do by posting Talk comments blatantly contradicted by your edit history? -- ] \| ] 09:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

	I see why that startup did so well for you- you cannot follow a discussion. I am not referring to Tarantino. I added a discussion about Murphy and Misplaced Pages based on YOUR and Gronowski's written statements. The part where you say I added them back is actually and edit because you say that there were attacks. I maintain that the second section is valid and I intend to add it back unless you determine otherwise based on FACTS, Dan.
	Furthermore- if you think Murphy is a public figure then you would have to conclude by law that a large percentage of a group of people would know who he is. That is NOT the case and the defamation laws are stringent as hell for private persons. Just FYI . ] 09:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

	== Back to the original topic ... ==
	If Murphy says that the incident never happened, do you have a link to any news media source quoting him as saying it never happened? Everything in the article needs to be cited. --] 11:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Getting his own side of the story in isn't the issue. He just wants the whole thing buried for some reason. I don't think that having a statement from Murphy in the article will placate him; I put together , quoting him as saying QT "sucker-punched" him, and he still apparently lawyer-lettered E!. I wonder if he had the chutzpah to lawyer-letter TIME? Didn't work, if he did. Anyway, it turned out not to be the lawsuit that got under his skin, but the whole incident. Who really knows what's motivating him at this point. -- ] \| ] 17:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

	== Article correctly and legally revised==
	:: Okay- first of all, I made the Tarantino incident much less important, and I linked to Murphy's denial about the event and his claim that it is part of the Gronowski Vendetta. This is completely allowable. Then I deleted the reference to the Biskind letter since that link is dead as dishwater. Then, since all you moderators alloed Gronowski to use a reference to Murphy's site (the Biskind letter) yesterday as legal, I have expnded the entry correctly using a link from the very same url notng future feature films. Everything here has been done correctly and honestly and any alterations will confirm a desire by whichever user to libel Mr. Murphy, ie, any change from these corrections will prima facie be seen as an attempt to attack him and not be neutral. I will also add the Tarantino events to Hamsher and Tarantino entries. Sweet day to all. ] 23:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

	Uh... no. Seeing as the Biskind letter was removed (I wonder why?) and Mr. Murphy seems to change the pages to suit his needs I have removed the reference to it. It is now apparent to me that Mr. Murphy's webpage is unreliable and can no longer be used as a source. Good show though. Cheers, ] ] <sup>]</sup> 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

	==Tarantino Vs. Murphy at the Ago==
	What's the deal? That's probably the only thing this guy is notable for: his fight with Tarantino at Ago. And it's not in here. ] 05:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
	: It's back in; it was removed when Don was using scare tactics on some editors. -- ] 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
	:: No asshole- it was removed by editors who specifically noted that the entry failed BLP. You are such a pathetic waste of editing it isn't even funny <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 06:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

Latest revision as of 13:50, 6 February 2024

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 21 June 2007, see discussion.
Keep, 5 September 2007, see discussion.
Nomination withdrawn, 23 March 2008, see discussion.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

] The anchor (#Tarantino's Natural Born Killers) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Don Murphy. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090328131654/http://cinema.usc.edu/about/events/event_20090319.htm to http://cinema.usc.edu/about/events/event_20090319.htm

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) 14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Add stuff

Murphy producing reboot of one of his films; pls help me to add Source: https://deadline.com/2022/05/league-of-extraordinary-gentlemen-reboot-in-works-at-20th-hulu-1235026114/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.85.125 (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Categories: