Talk:Toby Stephens

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Jestill.jpg[edit]

Image:Jestill.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Stephens in RSC Hamlet[edit]

Hi Old Moonraker. For the past two years, Wikipedia readers interested in Toby Stephens have been able to gain insight and information about Mr Stephen's work with the RSC in the role of Hamlet. About 70 of them have done so - not a great deal but enough to justify having the link. Now, thanks to your edit, new readers will be unable to gain that insight. Thank you for taking the time to prevent people understanding what Toby's production was about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.99.195 (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused: I have just tested the link, accessed from the article, and it seems ok. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Moonraker,Must confess it was more my ignorance of being able read Wiki-discussion pages that caused me not to understand what was going on. I though my edit was not "sticking" as I was not doing it right.

My point for what it's worth is that the Switzers Guide [1] link was of interest to people reading about Toby Stephens; His role as Hamlet is interesting; the fact that the "To Be" speech moved around, the fact that his Father's props were used in the production, the fact his deodorant broke down. People enjoyed reading about it and found it relevant. The link had been there for two years, not causing any problems, just letting people enjoy a bit of different background to one of his key performances. I feel that your decision to remove the link is just denying people a different insight into how Toby Stephens works as an actor. It was meant to complement the "official" RSC Hamlet web-link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.99.195 (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following discussion transferred from Old Moonraker's talk page, as it concerns the article, and to avoid a discussion in two places at once:

    :I don't know if he will read this, but the IP user who added his blog should have caught on after a bot kept removing it. But even with that and 2 editors, he still hasn't asked why it is happening! Doug Weller (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug, Must confess it was more my ignorance of being able read Wiki-discussion pages that caused me not to understand what was going on. My point for what it's worth is that the link was of interest to people reading about Toby Stephens; His role as Hamlet is interesting; the fact that the "To Be" speech moved around, the fact that his Father's props were used in the production, the fact his deodorant broke down. People enjoyed reading about it and found it relevant. The link had been there for two years, not causing any problems, just letting people enjoy a bit of different background to one of his key performances. I feel that OM's decision to remove the link is just denying people a different insight into how Toby Stephens works as an actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.99.195 (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be sure I tested the RSC's own link from the page, here. All of the insight, none of the WP:COI! --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deny it is interesting, Someone else has complained that there link to a great forum was removed. It is just that those sorts of links are heavily frowned upon (those sort meaning basically self-published, if your name was Hawkins and you had a blog on gravity you probably would be an exception of course). Read up on WP:EL, WP:Verifiable etc. Doug Weller (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, I think it's the "frowned upon" point that I struggle with. If an extenal link has content relevant to the topic then surely people should be given the choice of following. I agree whole-heartedly that spam links are unacceptable however the bits about Toby Stephens and his most challenging role are not available elsewhere. They are not so important as to go in the main article but the one thing I like about Wikipedia is the ability to "stumble over" new information and insight. Maybe that's my problem; I'm more a stumbler than a frowner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.99.195 (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, play on!

I didn't write the guidelines, but I agree with them. They tie in with a fundamental policy, verifiability. WP:Verifiable, and with the guidelines on self-published sources, WP:SPS, which you should read. Doug Weller (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading WP:SPS I now understand where you're coming from; if that's the policy then fair enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.99.195 (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience and understanding. Doug Weller (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood[edit]

He's only appeared in one Bollywood film, how is it relevant to mention that he's appeared in Hollywood and Bollywood films? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.71.94 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems interesting to me. -- AstroU (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

So when can we get an action picture or a portrait photo? Always an article improvement. -- AstroU (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing film ? ( London, huge robbery, very dirty cop...)[edit]

I don't know the name of the film am quite certain that I would reckognise it, if it was in the Flimology-section. Toby Stephens had the second most importaint role. He should make a huge robbery in a rather tall London building. But a dirty cop (also quite well-known and have dark little curly hair NB!! not much - slightly curly hair, he has appeared in Foyle's War, cannot get his name either) Essentially the cop shoots his best crooky police mate and lots of others, but Toby Stephens role charracter survives. And together with a woman he can leave the UK, I guess. But think of a 1. British action or action-thriller of decent quality. 2.A robbery of very high magnitude. Carried out by "Toby Stephens" (but the money should be spitted) 3. And the dirty cop, who by the changing circumstances "needs" to kill quite a few people. 4. Unfoldes entirely at London. 5. may be 7-15 years old. Toby Stephens had very dark red hair. Especially UK film interested people should be able to find out if this film is on the list. I doubt it. The film's name was short also, I think. Please help me, if you can. Boeing720 (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Toby Stephens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 03:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toby_Stephens&oldid=1208355252"