Talk:Bruce Payne

External links

This disagreement has been referred to the Wikipedia:Third opinion page for negotiation at Ariel23's request.

Once again Irish Guy avoids dealing with the actual issue I raise—namely, that he has said something about me that is demonstrably untrue and hurts my reputation. I wonder why… He obfuscates once again by merely putting up a link to a Wiki legal policy instead of addressing my complaint. So much for "good faith" discussion. Just for the record, I wasn’t threatening him as he implies--What? A lawsuit? Now how silly would that be? And besides, he's not worth it. I was simply pointing out his hypocrisy. He condemns me again and again, like a broken record or robot, for violating Wiki policy yet he himself is violating Wiki policy with a defamatory statement about his opponent. He, as an editor, has an obligation to act in an appropriate and decorous manner but he has not done so. Whose is the worse offense--my alleged "spamming" or his defamation? But enough is enough. What’s the point? This is getting us nowhere. I’ll follow Wiki Guidelines and disengage and have nothing more to say till I communicate with a neutral third party.

Ariel23 01:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki editors and admins have worked diligently to make Wiki more accurate and to establish appropriate guidelines. This is all to the good. Even when I disagree with some of the guidelines, I understand the rationale. Wiki would be even better if editors like IrishGuy actually held to the guidelines of accuracy. His statement on his User Page that ”Your account has been used only to add links to your own website in multiple articles” is factually untrue. Some might even call it “libel.” * Apparently in his urge to slam me, he didn’t even bother to look at the history of some of those pages. How unwiki. Not only have I at one time or another placed or replaced links to sites other than my own on the Bruce Payne page, I have also made many normal editing changes within the purview of Wikipedia. I am the one, for example who posted Payne’s TV appearance list, placed the second photo, updated the upcoming movies, made sure all movies that had a page had their proper links, as well as other normal editing to conform to Wiki standards. It’s all there in the history if he had bothered to look.

Furthermore, I created 3 film pages: Paranoia 1.0, Warlock III, and Ripper. I added the links to the IMDB and to the movie website when there was one. I added the cast and crew, synopsis, movie poster, and photos to each of these pages. It’s all there in the histories if he had bothered to look. In the case of Paranoia 1.0, I also contacted one of the producers, Geo Shanger, who then added more material to the web site.

In addition, I have also added photos to the following pages: Dungeons & Dragons 1, Dungeons & Dragons 2, Highlander: Endgame, Passenger 57, Switch, The Howling VI, Operation Intercept, For Queen and Country, and Oxford Blues. The last 5 did not have any photos before I placed some. I have also done some editing on Switch and For Queen and Country. It’s all there in the histories if he had bothered to look.

But Irish Guy didn’t do his homework, as a good Wiki editor should. He was too set on accusing me of “spamming” to check the accuracy of his assertions. He has also taken down a link to material allowed by Wiki. I believe he has abused his authority. I don’t think this is appropriate behavior for a Wiki editor and my next step will be to follow the procedures described in Wiki Guidelines for resolving disputes. For starters, the Wiki Guidelines say that people should discuss their disputes in “good faith.” I have done so by arguing my case and giving reasons for my point of view. His only response is to accuse me of spamming. Not exactly a dialogue. And apparently I am not the first to have this kind of unpleasant experience, as the comments below demonstrate.

• Footnote: According to the Wikipedia page “Slander and libel”: “In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation…. libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast)…”

Ariel23 03:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEGAL. A few examples of your spamming: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and so on. IrishGuy ^talk 03:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made my case that we are providing useful information about Bruce Payne on both Irish Guy's user page and on the BP discussion page. He has not really answered my points. He has just made a flat assertion. I thought this was supposed to be a discussion forum. Is Wiki policy undiscussable? That would be very disappointing. I expected better of Wiki.

I have read the Wiki policy suggested. I see where links to interviews are apparently allowed. Yet he deleted the link to interviews on Bruce's Angels--the VERY SAME interviews that are also on AGWLBP. But he left the AGWLBP interview link up. This seems suspiciously like retaliation for questioning his authority. Is it because I was the one who put the link up? No one is ever allowed on any page to put a link to a site with which they are involved?? If that is the case, to be consistent, the editors would have to delete 80% of Wiki. Shouldn't the link be judged on the merit of the content to which the link points, rather than who made the links? This is unfair and I intend to go through the proper channels to protest this unfairness.

Ariel23 05:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this last turn of events, I cannot help but question Irishguy's intentions toward the matter of fansite links removal. I see the history and discussions of what has been done and said. Why does he remove one fan site link, but yet remains adament on leaving another up when they both have the same articles and interviews? If, as he considers fan site links to be spam, if one is removed, in all fairness, all should be removed.

Rannulf 22:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In looking back over Irish Guy's edits, I see that he removed all the biography links. However all the biography links provided additional information about Bruce Payne not present in the Wiki article. All the bios he took down were based on reliable information from interviews with Mr. Payne and written in a straightforward, professional manner. Did he even look at the content? Why is this considered "spam" and "irrelevant." I don't understand. He did however leave a link to interviews and articles in magazines. Since Irish Guy seems to think this material is appropriate for Wiki, I have added the link to BOTH sites that have the magazine articles and interviews he deems appropriate. Now it is no longer discriminatory in that respect.

Ariel23 18:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I just read the comments from Irish Guy on my User page. They make no sense. Our site does not fit the definition of "spam" as defined by Wiki itself (see previous argument below). Nor are we "advertisers." We provide additional information about Bruce payne. We have discussed this below but Irish Guy has not responded to our arguments. We thought Wiki was a place for discussion. He has taken down all the fan sites but one without any discussion. How Wiki is that? And why was AGWLBP left up? If we are "spam" so is AGWLBP. This seems to us to be blatant discrimination. How Wiki is that?

Ariel23 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We have just discovered that Irish Guy took the links down to all the Bruce Payne fan sites except for A Girl Who Loves Bruce Payne. But AGWLBP has not updated in nearly a year. There is no longer even a webmaster at that site. The only sites that update with new information about Mr. Payne are the very ones he took down. Why is he doing this? Bruce's Angels provide information about Bruce Payne (biography, filmography, essays about Payne as Actor, etc) and is the only major site that updates with information about Mr. Payne's current projects such as "Messages" and "The Brothel." We think this is highly inappropriate. Why did he leave a site that doesn't update and doesn't even have a webmaster? Either all fan site should come down (which we think does a disservice to Wiki readers who want more current information and additional information about actors) or the ones that update should be left up.

Ariel23 03:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[It is our understanding that differences of opinion about the page and uses of the page should be aired in this discussion section. ]

We see from the history on the Bruce Payne Wiki page that all external fan site/website links, with the exception of the IMDb and the Bruce Payne.co.uk sites, have been deleted from the page. In the page history, the deletion indicated that the links were considered spam. We looked up the definition of Wiki spam. Spam is defined as unwanted advertising or useless or irrelevant links Fan links do not fit this definition.

First of all, fan sites are not commercial enterprises. Not one of the ones connected with Bruce Payne are selling anything. It is our impression that most fan sites are of this kind. Several of them are on free sites so there is advertising but even the IMDb has advertising so that doesn’t distinguish them from other sites.

Please allow us to state our case why we consider fan links to be vital, informative contributions to this page. They are neither irrelevant nor useless. They do add to the total store of information about the person on the Wiki page.

A fan site is more than photos. You might say it's almost like an encyclopedia too. In many cases, fan sites provide longer and more complete biographies than the Wiki pages do. This is certainly true in the case of Bruce Payne. They also provide other history and information about the person, and news of upcoming projects for the person in question, as well as articles and interviews with the person.

Fan sites also contribute directly to Wikipedia. We were originally approached by Denis Hunter on September 19, 2005, when he was compiling a Bruce Payne article on Wikipedia. He found our websites very useful to his research and invited us to contribute. If you go back through the history on this page, you will find that we have indeed contributed many additions to this page and updated out-of-date info.

At this time, we (Bruce's Angels website) and our affiliate websites Kool Bruce Payne, Bruce Payne Rules, and Welcome to the House of Payne are currently and actively updating. Outside the United States, we are also affiliated with the Bruce Payne in French website and Magnificent Bruce Payne website in Russian, which are also currently active and updating. Fan sites AGWLBP, Bruce Payne a Tribute and Kool Bruce websites do not appear to be active and updating. Two of these sites have not updated in almost a year and the other has had no updates in almost two years. The Bruce Payne.co.uk website is Mr. Payne's official website, however, it has also not been updated in almost a year with any current information. But regardless of whether all the sites in the name of Bruce Payne are active or not, they are still important and useful sources of information pertaining to Bruce Payne and his career.

It would appear that people visiting Wikipedia find fan sites links useful because they come to our pages in great numbers. Some of them have told us how glad they were to find the web site. Perhaps Wiki should poll the Wiki audience in regard to such items as fan site links and find out what they want instead of one person deciding unilaterally what they may be allowed to see.

Once again to reiterate, we think fan sites are an integral part of keeping the public and fans informed about Bruce Payne or any other actor, just as Wikipedia does. If not, we feel we would not have been approached in the first place by Wikipedia to contribute. Regardless, we will continue to help with current info and new additions in maintaining the Bruce Payne Wikipedia page.

Ariel and Israfel for Bruce's Angels website

Ariel23 00:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Sorry to say, Ariel, but if you check out Links normally to be avoided, you will see that the website clearly violates #11, if not #3 as well. It shouldn't be kept here.  hmwith  talk 17:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Uncategorized talk

• I have pieced together the article from the biography on the official website, and various fan sites. - Mrcurly 10:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Have emailed fan sites for assistance on the article - Mrcurly 11:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Possible Additions

1. A section devoted to his stage career (separated from the main acting subsection)
2. Improved filmography (with subsections for TV, Stage and Musical)

Details in Dispute

1. Date of Birth. Was Bruce born on November 22, 1960 as most sources quote, or was he born on May 20, 1961 as quoted on http://lmscully1.tripod.com/brucepayne/id1.html. Will assume Nov 22, 1960 unless there is evidence otherwise.
2. How many awards did he receive? while at RADA. He received 7.
3. What awards he has otherwise recieved (or been nominated for)?
4. In what year did Bruce undergo surgery for spina bifida? Some quotes give the age of 14, and some seem to give the age of 16. Unless there is evidence otherwise, we'll say he was diagnosed at 14, and underwent surgery at 16.
5. How did Bruce come to be learning at Shepperton Studios?... Did he sign up as an "extra" (as I think the official website biography states) or did he, as most other biographies state (in some way or another), just get in by "Putting his nascent acting talent to practical use, he would bluff his way into several film studios simply by looking confident and blending in."?
6. Is there any information available regarding his time occupied with the Edinburgh Fringe Festival?

Way too long

There is just so much wrong with this article... way to long for any actor with way too much name dropping and other issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.218.226 (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bruce Payne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718144327/http://www.tnmc.org/batcave/dandd.html to http://www.tnmc.org/batcave/dandd.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutral Point of view.

Much of this article is written like an autobiography there also un-sourced claims which *could* maybe represent an autobiography. I am not saying this for certain however it does seem as though large sections of the article is written by someone at least close to Bruce Payne. Many of the sources also fail, The Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (1980) An Entertainment, 19 November 1980 programme, GBS Theatre: London, may exists however I can't find any links with that name after much digging. It does seem there could possibly be Original Research in this article, however I would like to make this clear the only evidence I have is simply reading the article I don't have an definite proof, but it does seem to be fairly biased. Vallee01 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vallee01: who are you accusing of having a conflict of interest? Which passages seem problematic to you? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: There are multiple things which seem very biased when reading it, as an example the quote: "Payne revealed, "I know that my immediate family tell me that when I was very young I saw a play that my brother was in – probably a Peter Pan pantomime because it involved a crocodile – and I apparently shouted out 'That crocodile is going to eat my brother' and ran up on the stage. I don't remember that myself, but if it really happened, I think it shows that from an early age I loved that suspension of disbelief". This seems biased and an unnecessary inclusion to me, to me this quote does not need to be in the article and is simply fluff to make Bruce Payne relatable and put him in a positive light, you could argue that the section is necessary because it shows that Bruce Payne was interested in acting at a young age. However its not a necessary inclusion. The same idea can be given with far less bias and also far less words with simply: "Payne developed an interest for acting at an early age. In an interview with Impact magazine in 2001, Payne claimed that a crocodile from the play Peter Pan shouted that it would eat his brother and then proceeded to run up stage." In other words the same idea is expressed with less bias as well as less fluff, the issue with quotes is that when using quotes you are putting up a soapbox for people to express there ideas and Wikipedia is a neutral space. The Article is also almost written like a portfolio, it does document the life of Bruce Payne so much as it states Bruce Payne's accomplishments. If we take Ghandi as an example the article doesn't simply list off his achievements like a Portfolio it deals far more with his Personal Life and with his ideologies and other aspects of his life. In the current form the article it seems almost like an ad for Bruce Payne. Another issue is the sources, much of the sources have direct influence for Bruce Payne, by using so many Primary Sources much of the article becomes warped and therefor is unable to have a NPOV, there also certain sources that are completely biased in favor of Bruce Payne describing him as "Awesome" and "Fantastic". There are multiple other issues I see with the article but these where the primary ones. Vallee01 (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the article originally cited a bunch of fansites before I cleaned up the article a bit. It looks like I left in some less-than-neutral prose and poor sources, but I see no evidence here that there's been any COI editing. A long quotation, for example, is not evidence of COI or non-neutral editing – just poor skill at writing encyclopedia articles. I can try to clean up this article again, but you can also do it yourself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I am disagree on removing that quote, at the past it made me curious to read the full interview! also I don't see any problematic claims/info in the article.--Editor-1 (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)