Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:17, 29 September 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Douglas Tait (actor) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers C‑class

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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 June 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was delete.

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 March 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

"Legendary"

While the term "legendary" is obviously subjective, it was sourced. Comments? X4n6 (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability

If anyone has questions/concerns about this article, please discuss them here. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC).

Canyon News

I don't think the Canyon News articles cited in this article are reliable sources for Misplaced Pages purposes, at least for establishing notability, if at all. Per this "Specials page" and another dating back to at least 2008 on their website it looks like the paper sells profile-type articles. I will tag them accordingly. Novaseminary (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree completely. Have fully explained at AfD. However, even IF there were an issue, the question is moot as there are ample other RS sources that essentially provide the identical info - thereby confirming - and conferring - notability.X4n6 (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As I noted below, all of the Canyon News online "articles" formerly attrbuted to Tommy Garrett (here, here,and here) now are credited to "Contributor" (though Tait still refers to "Tommy" when responding in two of the pieces here and here) and there is now a disclaimer on each noting that "The content has not been verified by Canyon News" among other notes. As I alluded to above, these appear to be SPSs or the equivalent and should not be included in the article. I have tagged them as possibly non-RS. They should probably be removed sooner rather than later. Novaseminary (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

SAG Award Nom

Why does X4n6 continue to rm this official source that actually announces Tait's nomnation as part of an ensemble. Because it also list the 130+ plus others who worked on the same ensemble and were co-nominees for the same film? Novaseminary (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason I continue to remove it should be obvious. It blatantly violates WP:UNDUE. The better question is why you continue to insert it - and remove the actual link to the definitive SAG Award database itself, in order to do it. X4n6 (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

How? Rather than linking to the actual nomination press release, you link to a blank page on the same website. Why? It also lists the winner. Anything else violates UNDUE, at best, or is misleading at worst. Novaseminary (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Still wrong. The link isn't to a "blank page on the same website". The link is to the actual, searchable database the website provides. For a reason! There's no way you can plausibly claim the searchable, definitive source is less desirable than an easily misinterpreted press release about that source. That claim is transparently indefensible on it's face. X4n6 (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

How can the SAG's own press release be misinterpreted? Novaseminary (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You did it. Where does it list the total number of nominated performers in the category? It doesn't. Yet you took it upon yourself to try to do it? Nooo that's not misinterpreting, huh? Better question: just how/why could a press release about a database be superior to the actual database? X4n6 (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The PR is about the noms and winners (not the database, of course), but puts it in context. The database is about the various noms and winners, without context. One would not know Tait was part of an ensemble of 130+. That misleads. Novaseminary (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It only "puts it in (the) context" you would like that context placed in. That's textbook NPOV. It's also textbook UNDUE clearly intended to minimize the notable achievement of the nomination. In fact, as we're talking textbooks, it is also original research - making it a textbook violation of WP:OR - which you must be very well-aware of, as it is a favorite rule you like to cite. X4n6 (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

How can you say the full context into which the sponsors and awarders of the award placed the nomination is POV? The facts are the facts. Hiding the fact that Tait was part of a huge ensemble that was nominated is POV; it leaves a false impresion. It is still a very significant accomplishment for which he and you has an admirer can be very proud. (But it does not meet NACTOR.) Why isn't accurately noting the facts sufficient? As for your claiom of OR, it is fair to note that me adding the total number of his collegues is close to SYNTH, but you aren't quite right. We generally don't consider simple mathmatical functions any different than sumamrizing. If he were nominated with one or two other people, we could say Tait was nominated with co-stunt actors John Doe and Jane Doe. But listing all of his scores of collegues on the ensemble would be less than elegant. It would address your specious SYNTH concern, though. But OR/SYNTH is when you go a step further than the source or combine two sources to prove a point. I don't want to go beyond the SAG PR; I want to summarize it. Novaseminary (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

While your ability to obfuscate is apparent, how long did your "simple mathematical function" take? But why stop there? If you're really so concerned about context, why not list the total number of nominees in the category? Then calculate that percentage against the entire number of eligible performers who worked in films that year who were not nominated? That would provide some actual - and factual context, if that real context was your goal, wouldn't it? But obviously it's not. But a greater concern: what you call a "simple mathematical function" is simply - and specifically - prohibited. See WP:CALC. What consensus have you built for it? Where are the other editors who clamored for your unique interest in counting? When you produce those editors you may proceed, under their direction. Not before. Your NACTOR claim remains as vacuous as it is completely counterintuitive. The organization that confers the Award is the Screen "Actors" Guild. There could not be another body more uniquely qualified to confer notability on Actors. Re: the SAG Award itself, the word "Ensemble" is found in this award - as is the phrase "Outstanding Performance", so neither needs additional emphasis, but certainly not one without the other. That's clear POV. You should also review WP:SYNTHNOT as you don't appear to understand the policy you regularly reference. X4n6 (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Stunt role in Freddy v. Jason

I am unsure why the fact that Tait played the stunt double in one scene in Freddy vs. Jason is being removed by X4n6. Even Tait's resume notes he was "Jason Stunt Double". Novaseminary (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere in the source is the phrase "stunt double" used. You are well aware of this, as it has been brought to your attention multiple times. Kindly stop making unsourced edits to skew the article to your own well-documented POV. Regarding Tait's resume, see WP:BLPSPS. Also you need to stop edit-warring to support that POV. X4n6 (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough take on the reference, but I cannot find an RS to support the fact at all. This reference is a posting to a fan forum and almost certainly fails WP:RS. The site is not even affiliated with the films' producers, etc., according to the site itself. At least his resume lists the actual role. Novaseminary (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your concern. There are abundant RS that show he played the role. We're not about to rediscover the wheel. You should know this fact. Especially since you've routinely attempted, and failed, to challenge them all. X4n6 (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Fridaythe13thfranchise.com is a fansite and thus fails WP:RS. I tend to have to look at how the main classifies his own participation in that film as a "stunt double" and side with that source. We've had this debate before about giving him more credit for a role he did not actually perform. Ken Kirzinger did the same thing for Hodder in Friday the 13th Part 8, where Hodder was not available for 1 single scene so they just used the stunt double for a quick shot. Tait is still part of the film, but it should be accurately represented as to what he is actually classified as in the film. In this case, he's classified as a stunt double.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw the note I left on your page about this very thing, but while most of these guys are actors and stunt men, they are also character actors in their own right. As you know, they get far more credit among horror fans than just calling them stunt doubles. Just wearing a costume doesn't qualify as a stunt. As for the fansite, you know much of the communication done on this genre is in fansites. Still there are many other RS already in the BLP. Also it's more accurate to call him an actor than a stuntman because he actually has far more acting credits than stunt credits, while most stuntmen hardly ever do on-camera speaking roles. X4n6 (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Tait is not also a character actor, I'm saying that as far as Jason goes he was just a stunt man. If what is insinuates is true, his extent for filming involved him walking out of the lake from a submerged position. That is a stunt by any means. The fact that he was in costume doesn't change that he was performing a stunt that Kirzinger was unable to take part in for whatever reason. This isn't the case of Warrington Gillette and Steve Dask, where Gillette filmed one scene at the end but was given acting credit while Dask actually filmed the whole movie but because he wasn't a member of the SAG he couldn't receive credit. This is about a man performing a single stunt for the final scene of the film. The film classifies him as a stunt double. The SAG and the Stuntment Association classify that role as a "stunt" role. We cannot change things simply because a fansite does not use the word "stunt". Yes, I agree that he does have acting credits to his name, but as far as Jason goes he was a stuntdouble. Kane Hodder has both acting and stunt work to his name, but when he does just stunt work we don't attribute an acting role to him.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that he's also an actor and a character actor. As relates specifically to Jason, I have come across several sources that say he wasn't performing a stunt for Kirzinger, but was actually replacing him because he was not available for additional filming. He was apparently the producers' second choice for the role and when Kirzinger was unavailable for shooting, they turned to their second choice: to shoot not only the final sequence, but other parts of the film as well. Here's some more examples:

"Although Ken Kirzinger was chosen to play Jason, many re-shoots were made late in the production process and Ken was not available to work. The producers used their next choice for Jason, actor Douglas Tait. The most notable scene shot with Mr. Tait is the very last scene in the movie, just before the credits."

"Because the ending had to be reshot, and Ken Kirzinger was not available, Douglas Tait was cast in the role of Jason. His few days on the film were largely spent underwater. The crew discovered that when Tait was submerged, his clothes would cling to him and make him look less bulky. Tait had to be bulked up with pads and extra clothing. He also had to walk along the lake floor so he had to hold onto a rope tied under the water."

"37. Although Ken Kirzinger was chosen to play Jason, many reshoots were made late in the production process and Ken was not available to work. The producers then used their next choice for Jason, actor Douglas Tait. The most notable scene shot with Tait is the very last scene in the movie, just before the credits."

I also found a really good interview with Tait where he answers 4 questions about replacing Kirzinger: Questions 2, 3, 5, & 6. So if anything, to be accurate, we should call him Kirzinger's "replacement", but not his stunt double. X4n6 (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources being used

This source does not actually identify him as "acting" the role of Jason. It says that he appears in the film. It does not identify the capacity of the involvement. acknowledges that the only thing he did was walk out of the lake, so lets make sure that the article is clear that that is what he filmed. He did not act the role the entire time (which is the way it is reading right now). This source isn't even a source, it's a signed picture which is not a source for anything. Pictures are not allowed as sources, because they would fall under original research, so it needs to go as well. There is only 1 legitimate source that can be used, and the article needs to reflect exactly what it is saying, which is that Tait only filled in for the role in the scene where Jason walks out of the lake.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comments above. I accept your concerns about the sources you mentioned, but I think the sources above are much clearer as to what his job on the set was and how he was hired, as an actor. Naturally it is confusing because one could claim that the entire part of Jason is stunt work and not character acting. But I think to do that diminishes the role of Jason Voorhees - which is pretty much generally accepted everywhere as a role, not a stunt. So playing it, even for just a part of the finished film should quality as playing the role for the period, not just performing a stunt. Especially if that part is the film's big final scene. But again, I think the sources above make that point. I just included a few. There are many others that basically take the same position. X4n6 (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources (IMDB cannot be used as it is fan submitted content) that explain his role, then use them. But, do not ignore the fact that he is merely credited as a stunt double. Explain that he performed reshoots when Kirzinger was not available, but also point out that he merel got a stunt double credit. My point is more that if I read the article on Tait and I see what is written about Freddy vs. Jason, I would get the impression that Tait was the actor who played Jason in the film. That is not accurate, and is very misleading. If I read that Kirzinger portrayed him, but because of whatever reason he could not take part in reshoots so Tait stepped in, then I have a better understanding. Again, it comes down to a reliable source and the IMDB source you linked cannot be used in the article because it's no better than citing Misplaced Pages itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If you review the sources I listed and quoted above, you'll find that only one of them is IMDB, while all the others are not. You'll also see I linked to an interview with Tait himself where he discusses the hiring process in depth and notes he was hired as an actor - just as Kirzinger was hired as an actor. If you did not review all the sources I provided, please do so. But I appreciate your point regarding the confusion about who actually played the role. However, I'm confident that as long we specifically list that Tait performed the role in the final scene, or climactic scene, or finale, or whatever you'd like to call it - and we do state that in the BLP - we've done our job. Anymore than that is POV, which we should obviously avoid. X4n6 (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not POV to say that he was subbing in for Kirzinger who was unavailable for reshoots if that is what the source says. That's actually portraying information in an accurate light. I am aware that only 1 source was from IMDb, but I didn't think I needed to point out that this is a fansite, that this is a fansite, that this is also a fansite, and that this is a fansite. Fansites are not allowed as sources because they are unreliable when they are just presenting information. That said, the last link I pointed to, that is a fansite, it using a one-on-one interview. Interviews can be used, but again it comes down to accurately portraying the information. Tait clearly states he only did reshoots because Ken was absent and the article should reflect that. I see how you think that just saying "in the final scene" is enough, but to me it's ignoring the context behind why he did that scene, which comes across as deceptive to a reader. If you're going to point something out, do it accurately.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No it's not POV to say he was hired because Kirzinger was unavailable for reshoots. It's also not POV to say he was hired as an actor, not a stuntman. Nor is it POV to note that he was originally the 2nd choice for the role. Since all of that is in the interview and we both agree we can use the interview. My edit was just an attempt to reach as quick and easy a consensus on the wording as possible. However, if you're okay with including more material so as to give a better context for the events leading up to his being hired and working on the role, I'd have no objection. How about putting your wording here and we can work on it together, then post it to the article when we're both satisfied? X4n6 (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The wording doesn't need work, the information just needs adding. As long as it isn't a copy and paste job, it should be fine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. X4n6 (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Warning RE: Unsourced edits/Removing sourced edits

A pattern of unsourced edits and removing sourced edits on this BLP has emerged in blatant violation of WP:TE. If the disruptive editing continues, the editor will be reported. Suggest: if you will not/cannot contribute constructively to this BLP, see WP:JDI and WP:LETITGO. Otherwise, pursuing this course will result in action. X4n6 (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Dougomite Productions

The phone listed on Tait's resume is the same as for Dougomite Productions. This YouTube channel claims that In the Name of Freedom was "Produced, Edited, and Directed by the team at DOUGOMITE PRODUCTIONS LLC". The source in the article says it was produced by Isabel Cueva and Douglas Tait. Does Tait run this wedding and special event filming company? Is there any discussion of Tait being a wedding videographer in RSs? Novaseminary (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You tell me. Of course it goes without saying this is clear OR, but that notwithstanding, perhaps they own a full-service film production company. Although your claim that he's a wedding videographer is an unproven and laughable stretch. But what if he is? So? I'm still waiting for you to provide the relevance. X4n6 (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If I could tell you, I would not have asked. And right now it would be close to OR. That is why I didn't add it. But if Tait owns a ”full-service film production company” called Dougomite Productions, I wonder why he never mentioned it in his ”interviews”. Whoever Dougomite is, he is definitely a wedding videographer, at least according to his website. But in fairness, he also films Bar Mitzvahs, family histories, and transfers VHS to DVD, among other services. If this is Tait, and this is his day job, shouldn't it be mentioned in the article if it can be sourced more directly (rather than via the SYNTH, albeit compelling SYNTH, of his phone number, the use of his film and clips on the Dougomite site, and the name of the company). Novaseminary (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What you call "close to OR" is already well over it. His notability does not derive from any side business ventures or interests he may or may not have and any attempt to burden the article with these irrelevances would very obviously vio WP:UNDUE. Besides what, are we now going to start including everyone's side businesses, investments and stock portfolios in their BLPs? I'm pretty sure you know WP much better than this. X4n6 (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

CINE Award

Is it worth mentioning Tait's CINE Award? Per their website, you pay to have your film entered. And "All entries which meet CINE's strict standards for excellence will receive the CINE Golden Eagle award." And once you've won, you can "purchase the highly prized CINE Golden Eagle Trophy". Novaseminary (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It is rather apparent that the CINE Award is worth mentioning. Less apparent is any substance supporting this query. Your tags of sources related to Tait's BLP, , notwithstanding. Suggest you familiarize yourself with the policies/practices of film festivals, where entry fees are rather standard. As are awards, since they are the method of recognition for excellence - as your own source plainly said. Also the CINE Award appears to be a recognized and respected Award in the film industry for over 50 years. As the people who serve on it's Honorary Board of Directors: including Stephen Spielberg, Ken Burns and Bill Moyers, should attest. Their regular Board members ain't too shabby either. It also proves nothing, nor do you claim anything, resulting from what appears to be the option to winners to purchase more mantle-worthy versions of their Awards. So beyond just insinuation and pure speculation, nothing has been presented that demonstrates, or even approximates, a factual basis for excluding or even questioning this Award. X4n6 (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Fan-created top-ten list

With this edit, I removed mention of Tait appearing in this self-published "top ten" list on a fansite. The "recognition" is not worth including (anyone can create a list on this site, and there is no indication that the creator is notable) and the source itself fails WP:RS (as do the sources that mention this, including Tait Facebook page). Novaseminary (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I support that removal on the grounds that the website itself states that these are user created Top 10 lists. There is nothing notable about a list created by some random person. Otherwise, I could create a Top Ten list on the very site and put completely unknown actors in my list, simply because I like them or simply because I want to screw with people.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be general confusion about this website. It is neither self-published, nor is it a list created by some random person. As the website itself explains, people vote on these lists. It is a fan poll, it is not one person's opinion. Since no poll, including this one, is ever definitive, RS is irrelevant and does not apply. The BLP had clearly stated it was a fanlist, so I don't see the problem with it. It is just another indication of the fanbase of the subject. Just as this is for another creature character performer. The site lists subjects for all kinds of things. I don't care whether the link stays or goes because it's not critical to the article, but I also don't see any policy it violates or harm it does. I am confident readers knew what the word "fanlist" meant. X4n6 (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The lists are created by anyone that is registered. The FAQ page even says, "TheTopTens is a collection of visitor created top ten lists." Those same people are then allowed to vote on lists and request names be added. The problem comes from the fact that it is an isolated fan list from an unprofessional source. This isn't like Entertainment Weekly went out and did a poll, this is a list created by JSkellington....a FedEx employee. So, there is no validity to the poll, because it was created by a random person and then voted on by the people that visit the page and since you cannot see how many people that actually is that limits the poll even further. It's an unreliable, non-notable poll.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You do not have to be registered to create a list. You also do not have to be registered to vote on any list. All polls are inherently unreliable, regardless of the source. Even the most "professional" and "notable" political polls still disclose a "margin of error". As for the sampling of the poll, all polling organizations make national extrapolations based on just a few thousand samples, if that, so I don't know what knowing a total number gets you. The Associated Press claims "The AP-GfK Poll is based on a nationally representative RDD sample of at least 1,000 adults". Just 1,000 people can be "nationally representative" for the nation's most significant and respected pollster. So you either discount all polls - or you accept polls for what they are and judge their results accordingly. It's also been my experience that readers are usually much sharper than editors seeking to censor what they can read. The project itself appears to agree. X4n6 (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You cannot compare a poll done by the Associated Press with one done by a random fan on a website that has no real control over what the "Top Ten" List actually is. If I walk in there and create a Top Ten list of creature performers and don't include people like Doug Tait or even Derek Mears, then my "Top Ten" is not going to have the same validity as anyone else's. There is a reason we don't include user ratings from IMDB in film articles, because there's no way to really generalize it back. Yes, knowing how many people participated is important. One thousand participants in an AP poll can be generalized back to the nation as a whole far easily than say if only 20 people actually voted on some random dude's "Top Ten" list on a website that may or may not get very much traffic to begin with. The poll is not a professional poll (i.e. there is no accountability for it, it's not a realiable look at even "fan" opinion), thus it should not be in the article. You're more than able to start a "Request for Comment" about it if you believe in this poll so much. P.S. Pointing out that you don't even have to register to create a poll actually hurts your argument about its validity. You've just shown that the website is not creating lists based on any professional standard, and those lists are not being overseen by any professional either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Once again you just demonstrate that you didn't read or understand that website's methodology. You may select the topic, but you do not select the parameters. In this example the list clearly says "Don't agree with the list? Vote for an existing item..., add a new item for others to vote on or create your own version of this list." The Official Kane Hodder Facebook page promoted their own list, which says exactly the same thing. As does the list that was in this BLP. Also, are you suggesting the AP has "control" over their poll results? The only difference in the two polls is that one is ostensibly more "reputable". But I will challenge you to explain what makes the AP's random sample of 1000 people to represent a nation of 300 million, so superior to anyone else's? Or for that matter, why other equally "reputable" polls, taken by various national news media, can ask the identical poll questions of ostensibly the same national audience at exactly the same time and still get sharply different results? The answer is simple. As I've said all along, polls are not definitive. But they are interesting and they are fun. Your position ignores those two basic facts. Incidentally, Hodder won that poll with 36%, while Tait barely registered in 14th place with 1%. And I would post those results on Kane's BLP as well, as long as the methodology of the fanlist is disclosed. And probably get no objection from most editors for doing so. While you still have yet to identify what damage is done by inclusion with disclosure. X4n6 (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, I just set the topic and the people in it. Look, I put Doug Tait as my number 10. So, please feel free to add this list to the page as proof that fans think he's annoying. :D The methodology is flawed because there is no real control. Anyone can create a list on there, and duplicate it if they wish. Then, they can vote as many times as they want. That's proven because I just voted twice to promote Doug Tait on my list to be "THE" most annoying. After 2 votes, he's now sharing 9th place with Quentin Tarantino. I do this every few days and I'm sure I can have him at the top in no time. It's called vote stacking, and online polls are subject to vote stacking very easily. So, even if you can ignore the fact that it's a non-reputable website that itself is not actually creating a poll, but leaving that up to FedEx employees and other random "fans", is what there is damage to the page. Misplaced Pages struggles already to be considered legitimate, but when you have people that are trying to throw everything under the Sun on a page with no regard to professionalism, it does nothing but prove to outsiders that this place is governed by "fans" and does not present real information. I'm not going to debate this any further. I just proved that anyone can create a list on the page and stack it as they want. The fact that you can replace people on a list doesn't make it more reputable, it actually hurts the validity of the list if someone can come along and on a whim just throw someone else in there. If you really think so many other editors would actually agree with you, then start a request for comment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So you started your own category, defaming a list of people who have WP BLPs? Good for you. Not sure that proves anything, other than the fact that, like Misplaced Pages, anyone can edit there. But we already knew that. For all we know, you work for FedEx and why should it matter? But as I said, the defamatory nature vios WP:BLPREMOVE, so I would resist an effort to include it on WP. There's no need for more debate, I've already said it wasn't important enough to fight to keep it in the BLP, but not for the reasons presented. Still, I think you can't see the forest for the trees. You work on a project that anyone can edit on, yet you complain about another website that functions in much the same way? Misplaced Pages is what Misplaced Pages is. Some folks believe it's credible, while others post lists like yours about it. Note #2. As I've said, I will always err on the side of the reader and their ability to discern what they find credible and reliable and what they do not. X4n6 (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if X4n6 would add in a "poll" on the same site of the top 5 absolute worst creature actors, with Tait as number 1 on the worst list. I suspect not. That would be one random opinion, and fail WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, and probably others, and probably not worth the kilobytes it takes up to the extent it claims to be statistically valid. This is not Tait's resume, or even a profile in a magazine. It is an encyclopedia article. X4n6's crazy argument regarding AP polls (and insertion of several Misplaced Pages mirrors as sources recently) only calls further into question his/her ability, or willingness, to determine what does and does not meet WP:RS. Novaseminary (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your hypothetical, I probably wouldn't add a top 5 worst to anyone's BLP, but not because of what you appear to think. I would exclude that list because it violates WP:BLPREMOVE, while inclusion of favorable lists would not. The real editing concern here isn't me, but it does continue to be your pattern of attacking piecemeal this BLP with endless tags and unjustifiable complaints. If you believe your concerns with the article are legitimate - FIX THEM. That is your primary responsibility as an editor. Any idiot can slap up tags all over the place. If you can identify issues, then you can fix them. Yet you seem to constantly need reminding of that. So here's another reminder: WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. X4n6 (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages mirrors and user-generated sites as references

With these two edits, X4n6 removed a tag questioning whether this source is a reliable source. I do not think this is a reliable source because it is user-generated (WP:USERG). This editor also added reference to two other apparently user-generated sites (this one and this one), which also probably violate other aspects of WP:RS. This editor also added reference to this site that uses Misplaced Pages for its content in violation of WP:CIRCULAR. Because there is so little doubt that all fo these sources violate WP:RS, I will remove them again. We can always do an RfC, but I think that would be a waste of time. Novaseminary (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, if you have problems with the article, follow WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. You cannot tell me that date of birth info would not be normally included in a BLP. As for an RfC, I was actually thinking the same thing, regarding the catalogue of your edits here. X4n6 (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you even read the docuemnts you point to? "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." (WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM) I have tried to fix the problem. And I have flagged or removed as appropriate. As I see it, all of the serious problems at this article--maybe all of the problems--are attributable to it being promotional in nature rather than encyclopedic. The way to fix that is generally to remove the offending text and "references" leaving the neutral material that can be sourced to RSs. Frankly, I still do not think the article should exist at all because, having looked even further into the sourcing, I am all the more convinced there are few to no RSs that are anything other than passing mentions of this person. The more in-depth sources are either pretty clearly not RSs or are from sources, as described above, that sell articles or include them along with paid ads. So, to fix that, I probably will renominate for deletion at AfD since the last time no consensus was reached (though the time before it was deleted). Deletion would fix the problem. And though I disagree, the best "keep" vote at the most recent AfD was by Bignole, who you are inexplicably arguing with above. Funny.Novaseminary (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you don't read the policies I point to. You obviously ignored what followed your quote:

Instead of deleting text, consider:

• rephrasing or copyediting to improve grammar, more accurately represent the sources, or balance the article's contents
• correcting inaccuracy, while keeping the rest of the content intact
• moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
• adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
• requesting a citation by adding the {{cn}} tag
• doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself
• adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you are unable to fix yourself
• repair a dead link if a new URL for the page or an archive of the old one can be located
• merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge

Frankly, I find your newfound position that the article possibly merits an AfD renom to be disingenuous. Don't think it would go unnoticed that this would mark your third attempt. I also don't think you understand the difference between promotional and encyclopedic. Facts are encyclopedic. Upcoming events are promotional. Hyperbole is promotional. None of that exists in this article. What exists are factual credits, impartially discussed. No other entries exist. Nor is there a style or tone that veers in any legitimate way from the thousands if not hundreds of thousands of BLPs that appear on this project. Following your shaky rationale, every single BLP would include nothing more than date of birth, credits, awards, date of death - all sourced by the NYT or some other mass media of record. You could claim anything else is promotional. By that ridiculous standard, 99% of the BLPs on this project would be either deleted or eviscerated, and the functionality/utility of this project would be non-existent. No, I adher to fix the problem. I wish you did as well. Your first impulse is always to delete. Never to improve. Your editing pattern vios a host of WP policies, as other editors, long before me, have all tried unsuccessfully to tell you.

As for Bignole, or any other editor, he/she has already demonstrated that they know their own mind. I'm sure we can disagree in some areas and agree in others, just as he/she has done with you! In any event, I'm confident that editor won't be persuaded by me or by you - or your obvious pandering either. And that's what's funny. X4n6 (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I did consider those things. And it shouldn't be a suprise then that after a no consensus AfD I would consider at some point renominating. But since you have had the last word in every section of this talk page, I'll leave it to you have the last word in this section (which was initially about the inclusion of WP mirrors as sources). Wouldn't want to change things up. Novaseminary (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

But where is the evidence that you considered them? Where are the sources you've added to improve the article? All you've contributed is tags, for even the most innocuous things - like for date of birth? Seriously? You're concerned about mirrors for date of birth?? Mirrors for personal information like siblings and relatives?? Wow. But no, since your edit history makes clear your bias, the fact that you would AfD any article a 3rd time comes as no surprise to anyone who reviews your work here. Luckily for you, the admin who reviewed the last one made a judgment call despite a 3-2 !vote against you. (No, I won't double count the newbie who voted twice.) Meanwhile, what you call "the last word" is more about discussion, response and consensus, which is what we're supposed to be doing here, isn't it? Or you can just do more forumshopping to degrade, diminish and ultimately delete the article, rather than working to strengthen and improve it. But I already know your answer. Wouldn't want to change things up there either. X4n6 (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Former "Fan following" section

With this edit, I removed the "Fan following section. It was entirely synthesis, which violates WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH. In addition, several of the sources strung together in the section to "prove" Tait's "fan following" pretty clearly fail WP:RS. Novaseminary (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

High school and basketball team suspension

With this edit I added back a well sourced blurb about where Tait attended high school and his basketball playing there. I'm not sure why this keeps getting removed. It is obviously partly unfavorable (that according to the source Tait was suspended from the team), but it is sourced to two articles in the LA Times. This does further call into question Tait's birthday formerly in this article and currently listed in IMDB as December 17, 1978. That would have made Tait a 13/14 year old senior (and leading scorer per the cited article!), which could be right, but seems unlikely. Novaseminary (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You have been trying to delete this page for some time sir, and now you are trying whittle it down to nothing. You have already added the (stuntman) next to his name to further discredit the "ACTOR". Now you are adding negative articles to his page, and pass them off as needed articles to prove he went to Alemany. C'mon, back off.

(Trekkieman (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC))

I added this article and this article because, in addition to establishing where he went to high school, they establish "Tait was removed from the team for 'using vulgarities and abusive language toward the players" at an Alemany High School girls' basketball game'" in 1992 while he was a senior, as noted in the article. This is at least as important as his having played Frankenstein at Universal while in high school. WP articles cover the good, the bad, and the ugly. This is not a fan site. If something is wrong, follow WP:AUTOPROB. These articles are the most clearly RSs cited in the article. But this isn't the place to discuss what is in or out of the article. The article talk page is for that. Please participate there and stop being disruptive. Novaseminary (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As anyone can see, an IP editor has repeatedly deleted this well-sourced, relevant material without so much as discussing it here, let alone achieving consensus. I will reinsert it. Novaseminary (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Relevant? Because you say so? Ridiculous! Since when is any youthful behavior, completely unrelated to current adult occupation or cause of notability, relevant? That's a bigger joke than your persistent, disruptive and non-constructive edits here. As for well-documented? Please. You also chose to completely ignore the inclusion of favorable material from those same articles that would provide much-needed balance. Like pointing out that the subject was the team's high scorer, or an All-Star. You ignored those edits because they were inconsistent with your agenda - one that several other editors have long noted and complained about. For someone who loves to throw your knowledge of the rules around, you consistently ignore these same rules, like WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCE, WP:NPOV or WP:TE, when it suits your purpose. You obviously have no shame. And no character either. Agenda pushing editors like you are an absolute disgrace, and why the very credibility of this project is under constant assault. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:61D4:6FD2:B0C6:8F2F (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to articulate what you would like to add and why. We might agree. But your desire to remove material cited to the only major newspaper that has significantly covered this person will probably not convince anyone. This is especially so because Tait himself has noted his distinguished high school basketball career in several "interviews". Your harsh words lead me to believe there is a chance you might be affiliated with Tait. If so, it might be best to disclose that when you discuss future edits here (WP:COI). And here please remeber to focus on this article, not me (Wp:NPA). Novaseminary (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

See, here's the deal: I don't need to "articulate what like to add and why" to you. Who are you? This article is not your personal fiefdom. See WP:OWN. You do not "own" this article. So I feel no need to clear edits with you before making them. Also your latest attempt at trying to impose the rules to claim an advantage, is as transparent as it is phony. I'm not the least bit intimidated. I have no connection to Tait, beyond having stumbled on this article and seen firsthand your long history of pushing your agenda here and elsewhere, so I have nothing to disclose. But what I needed to say I've already addressed. Your tactics are disgraceful. They are hurtful to this project and you should be personally ashamed for having single-handed pursued such a vindictive agenda for so long. You must be an awfully sad and lonely individual with no real life to have spent so many man-hours, for so long, in this dogged determination of yours to character assassinate the subject of this BLP. Perhaps YOU have a connection to Tait that YOU need to disclose? Do you??? Your WP:OR on this article suggests that you do. The fact that you haven't recently been called to task for your long-standing nonsense is a failure of this project's leadership that someone should seriously address. But unlike you, my only agenda on this article is balance. That should be the agenda on all editors to this project, whether they're IPs or not. You act in clear opposition to that purpose, substituting your own agenda. So when you do, I oppose your edits. You've done much good work elsewhere on this project, I'm sure. But when you decide to get a bee up your ass, you go insane - FOREVER!! And that is unacceptable behavior that should not be tolerated by anyone - especially from someone who clearly knows better! Any other neutral editors who review your edits will agree with me. Particularly for someone who edits so frequently on theological issues: Protestantism, seminaries, etc. - and even have a seminary in your screenname, you exhibit serious personal character failings that do not reflect well on what I presume to be the ecumenical teachings you purport to profess, and make you a very poor representative of those teachings. Where is the evidence of YOUR Christian charity here, Novaseminary??! None that is in evidence, here, that's for sure. Lead by example. Remember? So again, if you have some personal connection with Tait, you should divulge it now. But if you can't, or won't, then go edit somewhere else, where your biases don't continue to cloud your judgment. Then, as you like to say, happy editing! But if you still cannot, then it's probably seriously time that you strongly consider taking an extended Wiki-break altogether, before you are compelled to take one. Because enough already. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:61D4:6FD2:B0C6:8F2F (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I do hope that was cathartic, and that we can now focus on this article. Now, why should three L.A. Times references citing to several incidents notable enough for coverage in that paper not be included here, especially when they are directly relevant to Taits All-Star high school basketball career that was the springboard to his acting career? It seems several other editors agree this should be included. I have no problem including more context, of course. I do have a problem with articles being used as resumes, PR pieces, ignoring less favorable coverage, or otherwise violating WP:OR. Novaseminary (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The only person for whom that could have/should have been cathartic is you. If not, that's between you and your mirror. However the fact remains as pertains to the article, the only relevance to Tait's subsequent acting career that his high school basketball career had, was the fact that he had a high school basketball career. Period. To the extent that you have not demonstrated in any way, that any specific events you are so doggedly determined to include had an specific bearing on his next career step, they are irrelevant. That's a standard of proof that you have never met and for good reason. You can't. As for what other editors have agreed to? You've had one editor agree, while you've had at least one other call you to task for your WP:TE and WP:OR and for including such obviously irrelevant material. But you have also failed to answer my question: Do you have an association with Tait that, per WP:COI, you must disclose? 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:61D4:6FD2:B0C6:8F2F (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not know Tait, have any relationship to Tait, have never met Tait, and might not have ever seen him in film or on the basketball court. I have no association with Tait whatsoever. I don't know enough about him to have an opinion of him personally; he and I might be fast friends for all I know. But back to the article... This article is not about Tait's film career. It is about Tait. The question is not whether the well-sourced third-party RS material is relevant to Tait's acting career. The question is whether it is relevant to Tait (the subject of this article). If this article were titled "Douglas Tait's acting career" then you might be right. But it is not (and an article with that title would probably be deleted or redirected here). Just about anything significant to his life is appropriate to include here if it is well-sourced to reliable, third-party secondary sources, including articles in major newspapers. The material in discussion was better sourced than just about anything else in the article. To my mind, that coverage might be the only reason this article shouldn't be deleted again (though I'm not sure it shouldn't be deleted). Novaseminary (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have no relationship with Tait, then why have you spent so much time on this article? Why do you even care? You are also wrong about the subject of this article. It is about Tait's notable and various work in the film and television industry. No other non-related information is found anywhere else in the entire article. You made sure of that yourself when you disambiguated it to specify that he was predominately notable for his work as a stuntman. So without specific relevance to his professional career, details of his high school career have no relevance. As for why the info was even included in the RS, it's obvious - those articles were in the sports section, written by a sportswriter and the relevance was solely to his and his teammates availability for upcoming games and the impact on their team's league standings at the time. As for deletion, you've tried twice before on even flimsier grounds than this. So for you to try again would surprise no one who objectively questioned your motives. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:61D4:6FD2:B0C6:8F2F (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I care about this article because I care that WP not be used for promotional purposes. That is why I first took interest in this article. I will assume caring about the best interests of WP is why you have spent so much effort here. What policy would limit an article about a person to one aspect of their life when multiple aspects of their life have been covered? Novaseminary (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

] (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I am going to reinsert only the material relevant to Tait's high school B-ball "career" as it has been in the article since May and was discussed here before the IP removed it repeatedly (which s/he did several times over several weeks before discussing here). I'll leave the rest of the IP's edits. If it is relevant that he played high school basketball (and I agree it is), then it is relevant he was temporarily kicked off the team and suspended (more than once). Since there is obviously no consensus to change the article in this aspect from how it has been since May, and consensus (which I admit can change, of course) was reached in May and held until recently, I would hope the IP will leave it (since it raises no Wp:BLP issues), wait for others to weigh-in here, or follow Wp:DR. And just to be clear, I will be at three reverts in the past 24 hours once I put this material back in, so I won't revert again if the IP violates and reverts this. Having lectured me on appropriate behavior, I would hope the IP would be dignified enough to act appropriately here and not revert again, violating 3RR. Novaseminary (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Here was my attempt. Novaseminary (talk) 06:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

:I'm glad you are concerned that WP not be used for promotional purposes. Agree. But you can't claim promotional concerns based on your own imaginary standard. WP:PROMOTION rules are clear and there is nothing even close to promotional material in this BLP. What other aspects of Tait's life is included in this article besides his professional work? None. Better yet, show me other instances where other people have had similar irrelevant material included in their articles. However, since by your own admission, you have admitted that you have violated 3RR by reinserting this material, you should be blocked. But the fact also remains that you have elected to reinsert this contentious and irrelevant material, despite the fact that you were aware that it was being challenged - and particularly after you were unable to justify it's inclusion - after repeated requests that you do so. How long it has been in the article is irrelevant. It violates WP:UNDUE and WP:BLPREMOVE, so must be removed immediately. Kindly do not reinsert it until/unless true consensus is reached. But I will leave all your other edits intact. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:61D4:6FD2:B0C6:8F2F (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The IP madade four points. Here are my responses.

1. I did not violate 3RR. (IP did, though, with its forth reversion again deleting this well-sourced, previsouly consensus material). I noted that my last edit would put me at 3, not more than 3, and that I would stop so as not to violate 3RR.

2. This information is "relevant" to a biographical article about this person's life, especially when aspects of the info are mentioned in more favorable coverage (without noting the checkered nature of it). IP must even agree this is relevant to Tait's life because IP is trying to change the focus of the article from "Douglas Tait" to "Douglas Tait's career" to avoid considerng this material worthy of inclusion.

3. Additionally, I reinserted material to put the article back to the last verison with consensus (the old, longstanding version plus some of IP's changes recently nobody, including me, objected to).

4. Finally, IP asked why I cared about this article. I said it was because I didn't want to see WP used for pormotional purposes. IP is right, the article now is not promotional (maybe other than citing some "news" articles of unconfirmed neutrality and third-party-ness). But whether intended or not, older versions of this article, including what was deleted before, were hugely promotional (with links to autograph apperances, paraphanlia sales, etc). It is not now largely not promotional, but instead fairly encyclopedic, mostly because a few other editors and I made efforts to edit it to comply with WP policy and guidelines.

Once this article is unlocked, we can pursue appropriate DR. I do hope IP will participate constructively. So far, all IP has done is remove well-sourced material without consensus. Novaseminary (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Your responses require a rebuttal:

1) You have already violated 3RR. In fact, you have already admitted above that you violated 3RR. See WP:BLPREMOVE to understand why I did not.

2) You also do not appear to understand the difference between "relevant" and "well-sourced". You seem to think they are the same. They are not. Well-sourced material can also be irrelevant, contentious and/or obscure material. While you claim your contentious material is relevant, you don't provide a single instance where this contentious material was referenced anywhere else. Especially where it was referenced in any of the "favorable coverage" you mentioned. So that material fails inclusion on several levels:

a) It is obscure.

b) It is not mentioned anywhere besides the 20 year old articles you dug up.

c) You fail to establish a connection to his professional career or notability.

d) Most importantly - it is prohibited by WP:BLPREMOVE.

Also, contrary to your claim, I'm not trying to change the focus of the article from Tait's life, to his professional career. The fact is - you did - when you changed the article's title from "Douglas Tait" to "Douglas Tait (stuntman)". In yet another effort to bury this BLP. Those disambig attempts are the weakest, most tenuous I've ever seen on WP. Besides, following your logic, nothing is so obscure that it should be excluded, as long as it has a RS. That's your claim now. But unfortunately, it is contradicted by your edit history here.

3) You should also stop claiming consensus when there is none. Another editor has already objected to your contentious edits. One did not. So that's your consensus? But even consensus wouldn't change the fact that it violates a WP rule.

4) But you do acknowledge this BLP is not promotional, since you say that was your original concern. I've reviewed earlier versions of the BLP and it was never promotional. Professional interviews are not promotional. They establish notability. Professional activities, like conventions, appearances, etc. are also not promotional, because they also establish notability. Those activities appear in thousands of other BLPs, without issue, but here you find they are promotional? Nonsense.

Once this article is unlocked, perhaps you will contribute more constructively. And finally leave your biases, NPOV edits and rule vios behind. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:19B5:6E4E:66DE:C07D (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Almost everything IP said above is wrong. But, relevant to this article and the proper reinsertion of this text is that WP:BLPREMOVE does not require the removal of all contentious material (and there doesn't seem to be any argument that the facts are untrue, so one could argue it is not even contentious; contentious is not the same as unflattering). Instead, BLPREMOVE says "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced..." (italicization provided). Is it the IP's position that four L.A. Times articles supporting these facts are not sufficient? I would argue these facts are far better sourced than other facts dominating this article that are sourced to a publication that sold articles as part of advertising packages (see above) and written by a publicist. Novaseminary (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The facts are all correct as I stated them above. A weak rebuttal all but concedes them. You also misstated WP:BLPREMOVE, which warns against both "conjectural interpretation" and "potentially defamatory" material. It also warns against "negative information" and addresses legitimate concerns of living subjects that such negative material "can damage their careers". WP:NPF also applies. So does WP:CHERRY. So the case for exclusion of your material is legitimate and strongly supported by several WP rules. You provide no legitimate basis for including it. The best you argue is that these 20 year old articles are from a RS, the LA Times? The current version uses that RS and some of those same articles, ancient and irrelevant as they are, without violating WP rules. So your issue is resolved. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:87E:8138:B589:6CA7 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother fully rebutting here. I will save it for DR when this article is unlocked where I fully expect consensus to be in favor of including this material. In the meantime, you mention "legitimate concerns of living subjects that such negative material 'can damage their careers'". Are you, IPv6, expressing concerns (legitimate or otherwise) of the living subject of this article? If so, WP:AUTO#IFEXIST and WP:AUTOPROB are the way to go rather than edit warring with several editors. If not, how would citing the only articles in a major newspaper about this subject, all of which are online (and this WP article does not even quote or reference all of the negative material in those articles, like the quotes from the coach) hurt this subject's acting, stunt, independent film producing, or special event filming business? As for NPF applying, is it your position that Douglas Tait is "relatively unknown"? Either way, Tait and his "interviewer" appear to think his high school basketball days are relevant to his career (and by extension his, I admit very limited or non-existent WP-notablity) (here).

And as an interesting aside, all of the Canyon News online "articles" formerly attrbuted to Tommy Garrett (here, here,and here) now are credited to "Contributor" (though Tait still refers to "Tommy" when responding in two of the pieces here and here) and there is now a disclaimer on each noting that "The content has not been verified by Canyon News" among other notes. As I suspected in sections above, these appear to be SPSs or the equivalent, then, and should not be included in the article and do not support the tenuous case for notability. If the IP or Tait himself would prefer the WP article be deleted rather than include all of the relevant available incformation in reliable secondary sources, I would support that, especially in light of most of the primary articles supporting notability (the Canyon News pieces) now being disclaimed by Canyon News. Novaseminary (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing I've stated here merits a legitimate rebuttal. The facts are as stated. But I look forward to DR, because I doubt your attempts to defend your indefensible position will receive the result you want there either. Also, bringing up WP:AUTO#IFEXIST and WP:AUTOPROB are just fishing expeditions, since I've already told you I have no personal knowledge of Tait. But your argument that only the subject can invoke WP:BLPREMOVE or recognize potentially defamatory, contentious or negative material is incorrect. BLPREMOVE is for immediate removal of "libelous, biased... contentious material that violates the policy on WP:BLP." You must familiarize yourself with the rule, because you continue to falsely accuse me of edit warring when the rule states that in removing contentious material, the "three-revert rule does not apply to such removals". See also WP:NOT3RR. You are debating with WP rules, not me. But you damage your credibility and appear desperate when you keep making false accusations against other editors, because you are not familiar with WP rules.

Also WP:NPF applies to people "who while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known". Tait is undeniably notable in his field. A fact documented by numerous sources. Any claim otherwise is vacuous and unsupportable by those sources. They also show he is well known in his field, while maybe not "generally" well known. Again, your problem is you're debating with the rules.

Regarding Canyon News, since it's contribution is minimal and material taken from it already has multiple sources, it doesn't matter whether that source remains or not. Regarding RS, since you now claim the New York Times, the Screen Actors Guild, the Hollywood Reporter and others already included in this article, are not RS, you should review WP:RS. Particularly WP:NEWSORG. Also rather than worrying about irrelevant 20 year old LA Times articles from Tait's high school years, you would do better finding recent and relevant LA Times articles that name Tait. Like here, and here, or any of the many more recent RS I found that can be added once the block is removed. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:188:60FC:E29A:819F (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

IPv6, consider taking a closer look at WP:BLPREMOVE and the guidelines for exemptions to the 3RR. I noticed you conveniently ellipsis-ed out the very relevant "unsourced, or poorly sourced" portion of the cited policy. NOT3RR#7 does not say you are exempt when removing reliably sourced contentious material, and as such, you were in violation of 3RR. Furthermore, #7 urges you to take matters up with the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption, which would have been a good idea, especially in light of another editor disputing your claim that the material is contentious. I'd also like to point out that Novaseminary's efforts to bring in outside opinions appear to be very ordinary efforts at community consensus building, not forum shopping. RFCs, either on the disputed talk page or on relevant noticeboards are encouraged, especially considering that no third editor had given input until after the RFC placements. As an aside, won't you consider creating an account? It makes things much easier on editors who interact with you, especially if you edit from a dynamic address, as well as hides your IP address. Jonathanfu (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

How old is Douglas Tait?

According to IMDB, Douglas Tait was born on December 17, 1978. But according to this article, Tait was a senior during the 1992-93 school year. Consistent with what one would be lead to believe from this source, the Bishop Alemany High School "notable" alumni list puts Tait in the class of 1993 (though this is otherwise unsourced) as does this classmates.com profile. Consistent with these, according to this article, Tait was a junior during the 1991-92 year and this article notes he was a sophmore the year before. Did he graduate from high school in the spring of 1993 at age 14? Or, if he graduated at 18, is his birthday really December 17, 1974? That last article indicates Tait, a sophmore, was already a bit of a high school basketball star who was slam-dunking (or trying to) before what would have been his twelfth birthday according to the birthday IMDB lists. That would be incredible. According to this non-RS that purports to be an interview with Tait last year, Tait was then 32 years-old (consistent with a December 1978 birthday). Does anybody have an RS that shows when he was actually born? Novaseminary (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC Biography posting

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Media, the arts, and architecture Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the material removed with this edit from Douglas Tait (stuntman) be reinserted? Novaseminary (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I think the material should be reinserted because despite claims by the variable IPv6 editor who removed it, this material does not violate WP:BLP/WP:BLPREMOVE. Because the text is appropriate and satifies the relevant policies and guidelines. I propose restoring the article to the version reflecting the last edit I made before the IP last removed the material.

Background: This text was first removed in May but ultimately briefly discussed (here) and restored. Over the last month, the material (and other very minor bits) was again removed by a variable IPv6 editor (who in one attack episode also reverted many of my others edits dating back some time), reverted/reinserted by me and two other eds (other eds: here and here), and removed again by an IP who finally claimed it was a BLP violation on talk (same talk section) after having failed to discuss at all until page protection was requested.

Reasoning: On the talk above and in my initial attempt to solicit comment at BLPN, the IP claimed that the text was properly removed per WP:BLPREMOVE and also violates WP:NPF.

• With respect to BLPREMOVE, I do not think the material is particularly contentious (disputed, open to interpretation, etc...), though it is not flattering. Even if it is contentious, is very well-sourced. BLPREMOVE speaks to poorly or entirely unsourced material. This is neither.
• I think it meets NPF because it is directly relevant to the subject's notability (though there is no consensus that the subject even meets N). According to Tait as quoted in what is the reference now at note 7, Tait's high school basketball proficiency led directly to his acting career (Tait's answer to the first question in this "article": "I was an All Star basketball player so she sent me on basketball commercials, which quickly got me in to S.A.G., and I made a living doing basketball commercials in the early years while I was honing my acting skills."). The full context of his high school basketball career is more complicated than Tait merely being a standout. There is no reason the reader should not know this. Anything related to what led directly to Tait's claim to notability is itself relevant to Tait's notability.

Novaseminary (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Editors should review the discussion here before commenting. This editor is now forum shopping in the hope of gaining support for his repeated policy vios and tendentious editing.

• As discussed at length on the original BLP Noticeboard, Novaseminary is insistent on including irrelevant, 20 year old, and contentious material, even after being repeatedly advised of the numerous policies this material violates. But in addition to the clear violations of BLPREMOVE and NPF, this editor never answers the basic question of HOW this material is relevant.
• HOW are the specific actions that occurred on the specific dates referenced in these articles, specifically relevant to the fact that Tait was subsequently cast as an actor, in part, based upon his high school basketball skills. The editor never answers this simple question.
• Misplaced Pages is not an expose' website, or a "dirt-digging", TMZ-esque website. Nor does WP do independent "investigative journalism." WP is exclusively, a tertiary source. So the argument regarding "the full context of his high school basketball career" is not only irrelevant, but false. What is solely relevant is that Tait played high school basketball, which led to his getting acting jobs as a basketball player. The End. The current version of the article does that.
• But following Novaseminary's logic, should we also include Tait's box scores per game? How about his win/loss record? Or perhaps his shooting percentage? His GPA which made him eligble to play? The results of his physical, which did the same thing? At what point will even Novaseminary accept that not every single fact is relevant or worthy of inclusion. Especially since Tait's notability comes as an actor/creature performer/stuntman/film maker, not as a basketball player. Because if the "full context of his high school basketball career" is really relevant, then we have more information to include. Obviously at some point it becomes ridiculous.
• But the real "full context" is already contained in Tait's own quote, which Novaseminary provided: "I made a living doing basketball commercials in the early years while I was honing my acting skills." That's it. In one sentence, Tait himself explains any relevance better than all of Novaseminary's quotes and sources combined. And Tait is a primary source, so even better. Once the block is lifted and since he referenced it himself, apparently Novaseminary will have no objection to including Tait's quote in the article.
• For someone who constantly questions Tait's professional notability, Novaseminary struggles mightily to include non-notable material from Tait's prep school years. Why? Perhaps this is your intent - which itself is clear POV pushing - and violates another WP policy. Novaseminary has also ventured well beyond WP:OR, as seen here and here, with no signs that this long-term editing pattern is finally coming to an end. So I believe it is past time to seriously discuss a subject block. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3D41:47E5:EC56:15A5 (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but this is not the place to discuss blocking me or to dicsuss me at all. The question at issue is, simply: does this text belong back in the article? Notwithstanding IPv6's ad hominem attacks, I think IP's threshold of relevance on this biography does not make sense. Of course, I "accept that not every single fact is relevant or worthy of inclusion." That is why I removed mention (and because it was OR) of the sunbject's various autograph appearances from a much earlier verison of this article. But the facts under discussion were covered in the LA Times and relate to what one would presume to be formative experiences for the subject. IP's problem with these facts really seems to be that they are not flattering. Regardless, the text and sources speak for themselves. I trust other editors will not view my unwillingness to further engage in the IP's filibuster-liek tactics as acquiescence to whatever IP writes next. We need to hear from other editors. Novaseminary (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Response - You filed this RFC - in your 3rd action/forum in a week. So it's reasonable to question your editing. Legitimate questions about bias aren't, and shouldn't be confused with, ad hominem attacks. On the WP policy page for tendentious editing, under "Characteristics of problem editors", is: "One who accuses others of malice". So for me to defend against misdirection and attacks, only distracts from the real issue. I've quoted BLPREMOVE and NPF. But you won't answer: What Tait's off-the-court history had to do with him getting acting jobs playing a basketball player - and what source says so? None of your LA Times sources makes any connection between those two things. Nor does Tait, whom you quoted directly. Only you do. With no source. On the TE page is also: "One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject". You can refuse "to further engage in the IP's filibuster-liek tactics". That's also on TE under: "One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors". But every other editor should need a source before voting yes. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:709C:2197:78A9:220F (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there a precedent in other BLP articles where this level of detail regarding a minor aspect of a person's life is included? I don't read a lot of BLP articles, so I would not know.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I think so. I looked at the FAs of film/media people. In a similar section of the article on Angelina Jolie, it mentions problems she had as a teen (especially the third and fourth paragraphs). In a section of the Eric Bana article, it notes trouble he got into as a child and how he first got into acting through standup comedy (second paragraph). Both of these actors (and their articles were the first two FAs I picked, so I assume there are others) are much, much more well-known that Tait (who has never had a major role in a major film, it seems), so NPF clearly does not apply to them. But I think these do support the idea that episodes like those under discussion here are covered in FAs and can provide insight into what later made the person notable. Novaseminary (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it. If an equivalent example exists, it hasn't been identified. WP:NPF does apply to this BLP, while it doesn't apply to either of the Angelina Jolie or Eric Bana articles. NPF says: "Misplaced Pages contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability". So comparing Tait's NPF to FAs of famous film/media people makes little sense. It's also odd comparing Tait to Jolie and Bana, while also questioning his notability. There are also concerns about balance and undue weight. This article is currently bare-bones as it is, so dumping in all this obscure material would just make it top-heavy to his high school life, and make that even more significant than his subsequent professional career as an adult. The current version gives the same relevant facts, and does so in a succinct, well-sourced, uncontentious and "restrained" way. Without violating BLPREMOVE, and exactly as indicated by NPF. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:709C:2197:78A9:220F (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes per Novaseminary. Also, personal attacks will not be tolerated.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

See my Response above to your NPA, then kindly discuss your vote so it will appear to be more than just a coordinated action. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:709C:2197:78A9:220F (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Novaseminary's position on this issue. Verifiable reliably sourced information should be kept in an article unless it can be disproven by more or better sourced information. There may be an issue of undue weight, but the information should be there. I have held this opinion at least since my first edit on the article 03:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC), over four months before your first edit on this project less than 21 hours ago, 05:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC), so I wonder with whom are you coordinating. My goals in editing this article and talk page are working together to produce the best article on the subject in compliance with established policies and guidelines. What are your goals in editing this talk page? You haven't even edited this article (as far as I can tell; if you have, please create an account and tell us which other IP Addresses you have been using).   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You focused almost exclusively on WP:VRS and me, without ever addressing the issues I presented. You do however, acknowledge a concern with WP:UNDUE, which if you review the edit log you will discover was my original concern with this material all along. There is also a question of WP:BALANCE given the relatively short article we're discussing. But are you familiar with WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:NPF? Because you ignored both. Do you appreciate their relevance and applicability here? RS is specifically discussed under BLPREMOVE as not being sufficient. Kindly review it. I have also quoted it directly several times here. The policy requires that material must be relevant and may not be contentious. This material fails both policy tests. All your rubber-stamping of this material months ago and apparently still now proves, is that you did not apply those WP policies then, and you appear uninterested in reviewing them now. Like Novaseminary, your quarrel is not with me, it's with these policies. But again, you seem more interested in pursuing an attack on me and my IP, neither of which are relevant in this forum - which I also expect that you would know. If you are able to re-focus, I would welcome a civil discussion on the merits, and on the actual topic of this RFC. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment WP:BLPREMOVE is not applicable here as, 1. I believe both parties agree the sources in question are RS, and 2. the contentious edits in question are almost drawn verbatim from the article. No original research or synthesis is being done. As I see it, the dispute over the edits in question boils down to just one policy: WP:NPF, and thus hinges on whether or not Tait can be considered "relatively unknown". I personally don't feel that I am sufficiently experienced with BLP matters to offering an opinion on what I think is an awfully vague guideline. As such, I think the best thing to do would be to return to the BLP Noticeboard for a RFC there. I know that Novaseminary and the IPv6 editor have already been there, but I'd think editors active on that page would be more experienced with WP:NPF and deciding whether or not someone is "relatively unknown" or not.

Going off the topic of this RFC, I do believe the IPv6 editor's conduct on this talk page and others with regards to Novaseminary have been highly aggressive and almost certainly a violation of WP:NPA. Given what I believe to be (the whole dynamic IP thing throws me off)the IPv6 editor's recent block for personal attacks against Novaseminary, and comments like "You obviously have no shame. And no character either. Agenda pushing editors like you are an absolute disgrace, and why the very credibility of this project is under constant assault." in his/her first response on this talk page, as well as numerous other instances in his/her following edits, I would be very interested in pursuing or participating in an RFC on his/her conduct. Jonathanfu (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Response. While I do disagree with your interpretation of BLPREMOVE on several counts, I accept your honest response that you're really not experienced with BLP or NPF. Like Novaseminary, you also didn't address the relevance of the RSs. The RSs do not draw the conclusions claimed. So whether they are quoted verbatim or not is moot if they themselves are irrelevant. I've also said I have no objection to this or any other forum.

As to your "off topic" personal attack, if Novaseminary can claim that his conduct is not the topic of this RFC, so can I. But my conduct in this RFC has been unassailable, so your unprovoked attack was itself inappropriate here and unwarranted. Particularly since you've apparently made several assumptions about this IP that you didn't bother to confirm. The fact is, I was not blocked. Nor was I responsible for any actions that were. Frankly, I wasn't even aware of any block until I saw your link. Several other individuals use this IP and can easily access it's page history and bookmarks. That's not uncommon with IPs, and while you should know that, apparently you did not. Also the IP changes, and I'm not responsible for the actions of all IPv6. So you might consider all these apparently new facts before you make any more unfounded and unhelpful assertions, or commit yourself to more ill-conceived RFC. I have treated you civilly throughout and would appreciate the same courtesy. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:709C:2197:78A9:220F (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:709C:2197:78A9:220F (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I did not address the relevance, as it is entirely conditional upon WP:NPF and whether or not Tait is relatively unknown. If he is unknown, then I think the material in question would be excluded, and if not, as per examples of more famous people, it should be included. But again, I would prefer to leave that question up to editors more experienced with BLP and NPF.

I think you'd benefit from rereading the policy page about personal attacks; my pointing out personal attacks have been made by you on this very talk page do not constitute an attack. I understand that IP addresses are often used by multiple users, indeed, have all too much experience with IP editors both being used by multiple and very different editors, as well as single editors claiming they are multiple people. However, given that several IP addresses12345678 from the range 2602:3FF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF have only made edits on this article, or made 1 or 2 edits several minutes before editing this article, and they did the same removing that you did, I did not feel it was a huge jump to assume it was the same editor. I don't know what other tools administrators have access to that might be used to discern whether or not you are the same editor, but with what I have available, that's how it looked. I can only stress what I have mentioned two threads above: create an account in order to avoid being lumped in with editors from your zip code. This would prevent other editors from quite reasonably believing a single editor from a dynamic IP is making these edits, as well as keep you from being blamed for what other editors at your IP address are doing. I thank you for trying to adhere to WP:CIVILITY, but would hope that you would extend that to your tone and comments when addressing Novaseminary. I did say that my comment on your behavior was off topic as the RFC was placed to discuss the edits in question. If you wish, I can strikethrough the portion of my comments about behavior and replace them elsewhere on this talkpage. Jonathanfu (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Like you, let's focus first on what it appears we agree on. I acknowledge and appreciate your candid response with regard to your unfamiliarity with BLP or NPF. But I did not make those claims in a vacuum, I actually quoted them. WP:BLPREMOVE calls for "the immediate removal of contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source", while WP:NPF advises that we "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability". We all agree that the LA Times itself is a reliable source, but that as you see in BLPREMOVE, is not the sole threshold. The source not only must be relevant, but it must also say what is claimed or inferred that it says. In this case, it does not. It is Novaseminary's entire argument that the subject's off-court high school actions, which are only chronicled in Novaseminary's clippings, are directly causative to his eventual work as an actor/stuntman/film maker - the source of his notability. But not one of those clips makes that claim. Novaseminary even references a Tait interview where even HE does not state that conclusion. But Novaseminary can? No. That "is a conjectural interpretation of a source" and a policy vio. Novaseminary himself also admitted several times the material is "unflattering". What he calls "unflattering", policy calls "contentious". A quick Google search points to Thesaurus.com showing the two terms "unflattering" and "contentious" are synonymous in four categories: "Malevolent", "Malicious", "Spiteful" and "Un-favorable" Synonyms. All along I've said Novaseminary wasn't fighting me. He was fighting WP policies. Now he can add the thesaurus to his fight card.

As to the IP issue, let me be clear. I "immediately" reverted Novaseminary's contentious material each time he posted it, as BLPREMOVE dictates. Since per the policy, and despite Novaseminary's repeated claims to the contrary, "the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals" My actions did not result in any block, nor should they have. The responses in this forum have also all been mine. As to recent IP comments elsewhere on this talk page, they were a response to review of the entire talk page and Novaseminary's edit history on this BLP. I will not address them further here, because again, this is not the appropriate forum for doing so. But, if you wish, will be happy to do so in the venue of your choosing. As to WP:CIVILITY, beyond that, my responses to Novaseminary in this forum are all appropriate. I also hope you are equally mindful that civility cuts both ways, and comments like Novaseminary's "unwillingness to further engage in the IP's filibuster-liek tactics" are not helpful. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the IP (by that, I mean the person who has been posting using IP v6 Addresses in the range 2602:3FF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF) has made at least one personal attack here, and I issued a warning to that effect. I would also be interested in participating in an RFC on his/her conduct.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Given this is your second comment/threat/attack about me, and not the topic of this RFC, when you were never personally attacked, I'm not sure you shouldn't disqualify yourself from participation in any RFC. This one included. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Kindly provide a single user talk page on which to discuss your conduct. I call personal attacks as I see them, wherever I happen to find them, regardless of their targets.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

For the third time now, you have chosen to focus, not on the actual topic of this RFC, but on me and my IP. Which surely you know is inappropriate in this forum. So I will not indulge your attempts at distraction and deflection. They constitute your own personal attacks, as I see it. Kindly refrain from attacking editors and limit your future comments to the topic. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Only the IP seems to think BLPREMOVE applies to this material. Until this IP editor came along earlier this month, this well-sourced material was in the article for several months. The status quo before the current disagreement is for the material to be in the article. Absent a policy reason for immediate removal, it should stay in until consensus to remove it is achieved (WP:STATUSQUO:"If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change."). I will reinsert and trust that that IP will leave it until s/he can form a contrary consensus here. If the IP disagress and believes BLPREMOVE does apply, s/he should post at the approrpiate notceiboard and leave it to an administrator to remove (WP:3RRNO and WP:BLPREMOVE). As for NPF, it seems this well-covered material directly relates to a topic (high school basketball) the subject has discussed in the media (he has discussed his high school basketball career, of not his suspensions, etc., as being pivotal in his success as an actor). I'm not sure NPF applies (Tait certainly seems to want to be well-known), but even if it does, I think this material should be in. Either way, it should stay until consensus to remove materializes. Novaseminary (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

With this edit, I have reinstated the status quo. Novaseminary (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the material on the same grounds as before, but now with a new one. You started this forum during page protection. It would seem reasonable at minimum to expect that you would respect this process and not touch the article until this issue is resolved. There is still no consensus and several editors are actively engaged in comment. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody but you, IP, thinks BLPREMOVE applies. If you want the material out immediately, take it to a noticeboard. My asking for discussion does not mean the status quo is not the status quo. It is what we are supposed to do on WP. Novaseminary (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

And to be clear, I have now reverted twice. IP has reverted once (unless s/he reverts while I am typing this). I will not revert again. If IP does, I hope and expect other editors will enforce the months log status quo until consensus is reached otherwise, or some other immediate removal rpovision applies. Novaseminary (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

As expected, IP continues to enforce his/her non-consensus view. S/he has reverted again. I am not going to bother reverting again, but I hope other editors will enforce the long-standing version. Novaseminary (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Under most circumstances, your claim of WP:STATUSQUO would be legitimate and I would have complied. But whether you agree with WP:BLPREMOVE or not, even you must admit it expressly says: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person". So "remove immediately" would reasonably supersede STATUSQUO. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

And by saying "take it to a noticeboard", are you now saying you are unwilling to continue with this RFC here and wish to return to the BLP Noticeboard - where we already were? And where at least two other editors have told you we should have been all along? Because if you're willing to agree that we're done here, I'm perfectly prepared to return there. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be best if we do return to the BLP noticeboard, I think it's more likely more editors will notice the RFC there.

You do realize the google search you linked to earlier was to the synonyms of "malicious", and that the same thesaurus does not list "contentious" and "unflattering" as synonyms of each other? But that's not important, with regards to BLPREMOVE, contentious material is any material that editors disagree on - the simple fact that you and Novaseminary disagree on its inclusion makes it contentious in the eyes of BLPREMOVE. So you're right that it's contentious. However, you are incorrect in stating that the edits in question are a violation of BLPREMOVE. Novaseminary doesn't interpret the information provided by the sources at all, he adds the information as is stated by them. And while Novaseminary claims that the information is relevant and NGF-compliant, the edits themselves contain no original research - the edits do not claim anything that is not supported by sources, and as such, are not subject to BLPREMOVE. The behavior you mistakenly refer to as "conjectural interpretation" of sources is just Novaseminary's argument for inclusion. None of that made it to the article itself.

Furthermore, BLPREMOVE does not say "The source not only must be relevant, but it must also say what is claimed or inferred that it says" as you claim, it actually doesn't say anything about relevance at all. The issue of relevance relies within the realm of NPF, and as such, your reverts are still in violation of 3RR. As a bit of advice, relying on BLPREMOVE to circumvent 3RR instead of going to a BLP noticeboard as is suggested by the policy is never a good idea, admins are prone to applying short blocks for that.

From the way this discussion has been going since I was last here it looks like this will be moving to the BLP noticeboard anyway, so I'll wait till then to discuss the issue of WP:NPF. Jonathanfu (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you in several areas. I've argued all along that the material was contentious, but since Novaseminary challenged the definition of the word, it devolved into a debate on semantics. I checked the thesaurus link I provided again, and it popped up both the term Novaseminary uses ("unflattering") and the WP term ("contentious") as synonyms under four words: "Malevolent", "Malicious", "Spiteful" and "Un-favorable", so I included the search. I take your point that thesauruses don't always cross-reference, and even search results may differ from individual links, but the point was made. We agree that since the material provoked disagreement, it is contentious. But I believe the "conjectural interpretation" of the sources applies, also as regards original research. Because a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources" also vios OR. Four separate articles were combined to infer a negative conclusion. That's also WP:SYN. We also agree that my explanation somewhat conflated BLPREMOVE and NPF. But we disagree on the BLPREMOVE, because it addresses "potentially defamatory material" and the 3RR because of: "Remove immediately any contentious material" and "the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals". Finally, we agree that this would/should have been resolved at BLP Noticeboard, and we should have never left there (a point also made by other editors and at least one admin). So I have returned the discussion there. I'll look forward to discussing NPF with you there. Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:EDE0:D975:4747:24D6 (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

BLPREMOVE state "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". IP conveniently forgets the bolded part. Even if the material is contentious, it is only subject to BLPREMOVE if "unsourced or poorly sourced". This material is indisputably well-sourced. Thus, the conditions for immediate removal under BLPREMOVE are not met. Novaseminary (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment