Talk:Douglas Tait (actor)/Archive 1

Archive 1

"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).

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.[1] 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."[2]

"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." [3]

"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." [4]

I also found a really good interview with Tait where he answers 4 questions about replacing Kirzinger: Questions 2, 3, 5, & 6.[5] 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. [This source] 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 Wikipedia 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[6], [7], [8] 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.[9] As the people who serve on it's Honorary Board of Directors[10]: including Stephen Spielberg, Ken Burns and Bill Moyers, should attest. Their regular Board[11] 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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? Wikipedia is what Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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))[12]

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)[13]

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 [I'd] 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 [[WP:3RR] 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)

Canyon News

I don't think the Canyon News articles cited in this article are reliable sources for Wikipedia 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)

 Done with this edit. Novaseminary (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)