1019:
sharing the dropbox link is acceptable to everyone, I am happy to try. But if it's not meaningful to do so, I will just refrain from commenting further and just show remorse. With two endorsement now, it doesn't seem the trend is reversible. Someone would have to do what they have to do. No matter what I do, at the end of the day, someone would always jump out and say he is just briefly mentioned in those articles, seeking perfections, despite it was a significant role. The goal post keeps getting moved, making
Knowledge like a club of the elites instead of a 💕 for knowledge sharing. I am really disheartened. This is not the kind of collaboration I signed up for. Maybe I am naive. I am sorry.
845:
new editor has not edited widely outside of this subject area, raising the issue of possible connection especially given the editor's stridency on this and surrounding subjects--if there is any connection of any kind, this must be disclosed per policy, 2) before resubmitting must make a good faith effort to impress AFC reviewers with at least three directly detailing independent sources--not interviews--which meet the reviewer's standard for RS 3) if correctly restored to pagespace, we would merge histories, if that bridge is ever crossed. The user should not rush this; if sources are not found, they should wait until they can be presented.
2770:. When I had socket puppetry more than 4.5 years ago, it was because I had no ideas about the rules and wanted to upload high-resolution pictures authorized to be released. If you check all the discussions at the time, the defense has been consistent and simple. Ever since the education by DGG in person here in NYC, I have realized my naivete and haven't used socket puppetry for even one single day, no matter how heated the subsequent debates have become and how I lament the lack of participation from around the world. There are at least 500 millions Chinese still can't use Knowledge because it's
2237:
times, "TL;DR --we don't need a wall of 'facts' and 'reasoning' from
Poindexter Pencilneck here; my 15-second analysis is good enough for me". Sure hope I don't get that here. It's one thing to not have the time or even expertise to do lengthy analysis of stuff; it's another thing to disdain and reject if someone happens to come along who does. If you don't have the time read and consider, that totally fine (we're busy and its a hobby), but let's not make that a positive good. It smacks of anti-intellectualism which you do see here, and it isn't a path we want to be going down, in my opinion.
393:
turn, it's the theaters works and maybe audiobooks that have convinced notability, though I still prefer movies and TV shows, because they are at our fingertips. I didn't make my argument lengthy at the time, because I presumed people would have read all the argument on the talk page or my talk page by now, but maybe they didn't. And I am sorry that my experience is still junior to everyone here that I simply can't write to convince otherwise.
2548:. DGG and Supermann weren't exactly strangers. If after these 2017 discussions DGG this year chose to nominate one of Supermann's pages for deletion, I trust David's judgement and unspoken experience with this confessed and relapsed bad actor, a person David has met in RL. In my humble opinion, DGG was being kind by nominating it. I closed it quietly as DENY. I will confess I didn't expect Supermann to apply to DRV as a total innocent.
2149:, so moving on from the AfD to the actual close itself. The objections are two: that closer didn't read the AfD correctly (see above section), and the closer gave zero explanation of their thinking or reasons for their decisions, which in not acceptable in this case. And further, the closer is circling the wagons and doubling down here, which is not a good look and doesn't inspire confidence in his thought process at the close.
214:. The AfD discussion failed to mention that the article was rejected at AfC due to the creator repeatedly submitting the draft without sufficiently addressing concerns and repeatedly putting forward the reviews mentioned in the AfD rational as the "three best sources", a decision I agreed with at the time (the creator later moved it to the mainspace after being told it was allowed). I also have reservations on the
356:
passed at AFC), but would need substantially better anchoring sources, which I could not find but might still be produced. The subject seems a fine working actor with credits in films, TV, theater and now audiobook narrator (the field where I think it's most likely to find RS). It gave me no pleasure to delete the page, but felt unable to support keep myself (or I would have contributed to the discussion).
1936:'s response was "Making claims do not verify his roles. It needs reliable sources to support the claims. As I can see, the subject has played zero lead roles. The guidelines are very simple: WP:NACTOR: "1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions..." Again: this was pointed out, and just repeating is annoying at least. And in fact
996:- I'm not quite sure what to make of this one. The close seems okay, given it was all delete, and the one keep was rambling, incomprehensible, and wouldn't answer simple questions like "show us a source". At the same time, some of the references in the article, particularly the DublinLive and Sunday Times one seem to be worth considering - and there's no end of recent Indian media coverage for
2779:
some unknown fledgling media agency out there trying to pop up some non-notable companies or actors. It was all about the passion of the works that I have watched myself that I decided that the knowledge needs to be shared to others. When you create something, you don't want it to be deleted. As simple as that. I now will refrain from creating an
English page for the Hong Kong movie about
374:, and for properly deleting the article. If an AfD goes 2 to 1 (3 to 1 including the nominator), one can have doubts, relist, etc. or even close as "keep" or "no consensus", based on the arguments put forward. The problem is that Supermann's argument (and I'm skipping over their weird opening sentences) basically boils down to "he was in movies and he's notable". Yes, there was a sock (a
1514:. We can all agree that the "Filmography" part is essentially accurate, yes? (The "Biography" part is useless.) I'm not suggesting using an IMDd page as a ref in the article. I'm using it as the basis of "here are some true facts all neat in one place, for article purposes we can ref these to the works themselves or find better refs elsewhere eventually". Different things. OK, moving on.
1927:"Delete, a non-notable actor with minor roles. Fails WP:NACTOR as well general notability guidelines" and then a legit question: "Did Hogan has played any lead role? If yes, please specify which ones..." So good, a question to be answered: has he played any lead role? And it was answered, in detail: "It's right there in the article/filmography... (and then this is demonstrated).
86:. Because of the walls of text, any good arguments on either side are not easily discerned and I'll have to do with the headcount. Given that we have no consensus here, I as DRV closer can choose to relist the AfD. I'm doing so because the discussion was relatively short and not previously relisted. It is therefore possible that a relisting might result in a clearer consensus.
957:
the rules" even when acting out-of-process and in opposition to the community. It does not mean total anarchy. Ignore all rules is rarely a winning argument, but intends to give any individual editor a license to try something daring and thoughtful without fear of being castigated for the mere attempt. In this case, you have acted badly and have chosen to agree to reasonable
2440:, criteria #3 is not on the table and never was, no one has suggested that Hogan has made any unique contributions to the art of film. It's criteria #1 that's in play: "has played significant roles in multiple notable films". Here (as always in life) we have to interpret the meaning and intent of the passage. My view is that "multiple" means "two or more", not "several". I
210:- I believe I am the "one editor" Supermann was referring to, as I had a hand in editing the article as well. I'm unsurprised the AfD happened or the outcome of it. In my opinion, Hogan has some minor notability as an audiobook narrator (there was a Times article on Irish audiobook narrators that dedicated several paragraphs to him), but at best would be a case of
1410:: Following deep analysis I have come to the view a relist is appropriate, with no fault or incorrectness to the original close decision. A relist now may be less disruptive than the other pathway which is draftification then re-entry to mainspace with improved sources identified against the apparent significant roles mostly identified at the AfD, namely
909:, I strongly suggest you stop discussing editors overmuch and bludgeoning discussions. Defending one's writing is proper; a wikipedian would not write an article without purpose. Best to defend one's work with sourcing, not undue argument. Please signal your willingness to improve in these areas by asking to withdraw this now unnecessary process.
977:
work and IAR gets chipped away disproportionately instead of being an equal branch of the pillars that I am really frustrated. At the end of the day, if having this page up really hurts
Knowledge, please let me know how it hurts. And where is that mechanism where I can upload RS to expand people's access to RS? Thanks.
1157:, despite its failed its bid to represent India for the 94th Oscars. Please don't keep imposing your negative dark world view onto us. I have nothing COI-wise to declare. And any Check User can perform any kind of checks on me to see if there any sign of coordination with all of his other works' pages creation, incl.
2771:
2288:
1) When you do admin actions, take time and consider the action. If you can't, leave it someone who does have time. If if it looks no one else is going to show up and the action has to be done anyway, fail safe -- if not enough thought can be applied to a matter, then don't block, don't delete, don't
2044:, with: "Does not appear to have had any really major roles; a lot of minor ones -- mostly as figures in minor documentaries -- doesn't make for a notable actor. I don't see that any of the references discusses him in a substantial way--they're reviews of the minor films which, naturally mention him."
475:
that any of us can see with our own eyes, if we are willing to do so. I bet you still haven't seen any of them. And 3 other significant roles in theaters that I guess none of us could witness but have to rely on media reports. The Dublin article popped up because there have been keen interests in the
2805:. Even CiphriusKane has moved on, because there are better things to do in life. Please go produce/direct/write an actual movie instead of being a forever film school grad student. I look forward to watching your productions in the history of filmmaking. As simple as that. Thanks. My forever critic.
2311:
5) While we have many core non-negotiable policies (NPOV, RS, etc), we are not rule bound here. This is not the DMV. Admins are here to preserve and defend the encyclopedia; everything else is mostly noise. Guidelines are important to know well, and are a good starting pointing for thinking about an
1966:
Before we get bogged down in lead role, let's recall the guideline doesn't even use the term. The guideline instead uses "significant roles." So I am not gonna go down this rabbit hole, when the answers you seek are on the filmography by ctrl+f finding "lead role" - an imprecise term used by others.
1428:
doing neither themselves not the article any favours by being SEALIONed, discussion BLUDGEONing, personal attacks and stupid asides rather than source focus. AfC is pointless as probably won't pass the AfC bar which is necessarily higher than the AfD bar which this article might ultimately scrape.
1423:
seemed reasonable, particularly focusing on the interference from the Sock was an issue, and the removal rather than striking of the Sock's vote and subsequent entries left a somewhat disjointed looking discussion. Ultimately the low participation discussion diverged from examining specific sources
1018:
Thanks Nfitz. I highly appreciate it. The fact of the matter is some of the RS are no longer accessible online freely. Even using web archive doesn't seem to work. One can only access them via
Factiva if not some other world class digital library. If uploading the printout for such RS to dropbox and
682:
the
Knowledge:Notability_(people)#Entertainers, what can I do?" The canvassing article also labels the following as inappropriate: "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." The section title is clearly loaded due to non-neutral language. As
2778:
that has kept me going for so long. DGG has remained very objective ever since and throughout this process, showing no favoritism towards a fellow New Yorker whatsoever so that you guys can know for sure his stature and incorruptibility. I am a total innocent here because I am obviously not part of
2597:
I sent an email to Dublin Live as well as Brian Dillon, author of Dublin Live article, but it seems they're not ready to discuss the issue. Supermann should comply with our UPE and COI, if they're engaged in such activities. From article's history, it seems they are keeping an eye on the subject in
1267:
If I may ask, what evidence is there that the Dublin Live article is paid for or COI? They openly state that they host user-generated content (though it may just be limited to comments and reviews) and that contributors can send in articles to the editing staff, but the only mention of payment that
976:
I did take you all seriously too and that's why I have been trying to improve the article and expand on content I have never seen, like reading about his theater works or audio books, and follow the process. I also toe the line on all other edits. It's only until toeing that line no longer seems to
956:
has been well-considered by all the editors in this process, but doesn't mean what you apparently think it means. It does not mean ignore pillars, policies, and guidelines without consequences. It does not mean ignore consensus amongst wikipedians in formal processes. It doesn't mean "keep ignoring
2854:
Thanks. Now this is the
CiphriusKane I remember, having prompted me to explore his theater works, coming up with a long list of filmography now people are saying non-notable. I haven't seen any of his theater works and had to rely on written sources. I have only seen one Broadway show here in NYC,
2236:
So, here I am, writing a long and detailed analysis. You don't have to agree with any of it (although not agreeing with the parts that are prima facie facts isn't a good look, but: people). But you do have to acknowledge that it's significant brainwork. I've done this before, and been met with, at
1827:
So but I'll tell you what. Pick a movie at random. Click on the last-listed bluelinked cast member. That person will most probably be described as a "character actor" and will not have had any rules as substantial as our subject has had and probably not as many, and they will also struggle to meet
844:
has requested permission to userfy/utilize the work to date, perhaps to draftify or otherwise continue to improve the page. The editor's commitment, energy, and industry is to be commended. I have a few issues with recreation, encouraging that editor not to take advantage of the situation: 1) this
1519:
So before I look at the merits of the AfD discussion itself, just some background on the subject himself. Understood that, at least technically, the merits of the article are not supposed to be the issue, still, useful background for analyzing the AfD. Bottom line is that the article is fine, and
355:
is a series of interviews with various actors who've been performing audiobook readings during the pandemic. I personally did a BEFORE to verify applied sources and look for new ones. I believe an article for the subject could be created (and I would not object if the the article was successfully
2648:, despite not being able to represent India at the 94th Oscars. Good luck getting a response from Dublin Live and Brian Dillon. My suspect is you are a nobody and that's why the capitalist media are not interested in responding. If you do have luck hearing from them, you should also reach out to
2478:
conclusion is that Hogan has had significant roles in several notable productions. You'd have to interpret the rule rather strictly to disagree; if you're wanting first or second lead roles in three or more productions, you're talking about deleting most of our articles on actors. And I mean, in
1460:
one doesn't want us to have perfectly OK articles like this, one could try to claim the subject doesn't meet the GNG. One would be wrong, but not by that much. The thing is tho, that case wasn't even made at the AfD. GNG wasn't mentioned. It wasn't a factor in any of this. The discussion was all
923:
I comply with the three RS request, if on this page I could upload the RS articles for everyone to see. Many are either behind a paywall or no longer available online easily. Still retrievable via
Factiva though. Otherwise, let's have the due process run out instead of thinking it's unnecessary,
392:
My argument was funny because I have only seen some of his movies and TV shows, but not ALL, and certainly not any of his audiobooks and theaters works and game voiceover. If it was up to me, I would have stopped the editing at just those two former genres, but then editors kept wanting more. In
301:
An article such as this is gonna be deleted by people like you who rarely watch TV and films and who doesn't like the "no firm rules". Fabulous. Thanks and I appreciate your criticism. Basically, it comes down to a bunch of non-film expert experts who have never seen his work preventing people's
573:
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Maybe I have reading comprehension issues, since
English is not my first language, yet I am still contributing. And one of the five pillars also says, "Knowledge has no firm rules." How do we reconcile with that?
419:
for future references than showing interest in a non-notable subject. The subject in question is a non-notable actor and is currently not suitable for inclusion in
Knowledge. If you still think it passes notability guidelines, you may create a draft and submit it for AfC review. However, if you
821:
The undelete request is to get back the article. As simple as that. As I said over there, I am gonna lose here, because there are too many fundamentalists here ignoring the "no firm rules." I haven't seen Redwater, so I will stop commenting on that. It's my principle that I don't comment on an
493:
kept vandalizing everywhere under your nose. I understand you are not admin, but I think it's time you refocus where the enforcement should truly lie and let readers have access to the knowledge which is why I joined Knowledge and decided to give back. I have never deleted any article, because
466:
I read that COI guideline and there is simply none whatsoever. I am just a tax accountant based in NYC. The article was cut down to bare minimum without any fluff by page reviewers after lengthy discussions. You are saying he made a mistake. I can't remember who that reviewer is. Hogan has 2
2057:
roles.) We also know that there's a ref that gives him a paragraph. Just one (the other one came out later), but "one" is "any". So that's not accurate either. So, fine, nom was was made, nom was addressed, nom was shown to be probably not accurate, no problem, that's what we're here
961:
in front of the community, and choosing to honor those agreements you've made will stand you in good stead. Your willingness to engage on these subjects and admit poor judgement has been an important factor in our willingness to extend this opportunity. Please take us seriously.
2017:
has had nothing to say except to repeat a question over and over that's already been addressed. Even if he is acting in good faith and just hasn't gotten a handle yet on how we roll here, he's got nothing useful to say, so I wouldn't think you'd pay a much attention to him.
1317:
I'm not sure what you are looking for. Sources that show DublinLive is not a paid source? Are there any sources that show DublinLive IS a paid source? Has this film actually been released in Dublin - I'm curious what would anyone's motive to pay for such an article!
1339:. The only evidence you have provided for a COI are a coincidental timing. The claim that Dublin Live is a "foreign media" is also unconvincing, as the subject Stephen Hogan originally came from Dublin. Have you got any concrete evidence that there is a COI here?
1446:. Relist if you like, altho the I wouldn't since the article's perfectly OK and here weren't any actual (accurate) argument made to delete in the original AfD, but whatever. I'll have more to say on the matter presently, for as an executive summary for right now:
2333:
used (which most are, sometimes), how much it isfollowed and how much not, and when it is appropriate to consider the heading for (I think) all guidelines: " is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with
863:, but as the criticism I received over there, I have not added many 2021 films to the list. The passion on Hogan is mainly driven I have seen some of his works, but apparently not all. The starting point is Starship Troopers 3: Marauders. This song of his at
480:
that ultimately failed India's internal nomination for the 94th Oscars. All of these movies are important subjects in human's history. There is no way that Dublin article was coordinated with me. Have you even seen that movie that is about the aftermath from
2652:
and the reporter Rick de Yampert and ask them why they have entirely removed the 2011 article from their website regarding the local premiere of Kingdom of Dust, meaning even a subscription can't turn up the article. Are they ashamed of the coverage? Was it
2493:
To clarify, I have suggested Hogan had made "prolific" contributions due to the long filmography, if you search for it here just by ctrl+F. But apparently, TheBirdsShedTears and I read English differently. Sorry. I am not a native speaker/writer of English.
2787:, as I currently don't see the meaning of doing so. I am lethargic at this point, but I am extremely grateful for the kindness and time that a total stranger Herostratus had shown me, despite we have never met in person or interacted at all on Knowledge.
867:
is so damned good. I encourage everyone here who has refused to give any of his performances a chance to at least spend 1 minute on that one. But of course, if they can even see the movie, that would be the best. Call that a shameless promotion. Thanks.
647:
The canvassing article says, "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve
1268:
I've seen is in relation to compensation for damaged devices. I can understand the concern about Supermann being a COI editor given their obsessive behaviour but I think they're just a dedicated fan, especially given their hyping of Hogan's roles
2131:, I'm talking to the audience. I don't know about COI because I'm mostly just engaging with the article and the AfD, where COI wasn't mentioned (except once, in passing, by the sockpuppet), so I'm not addressing that right now. I might later.
2244:; the nom was legit, but it wasn't super high-effort and throwing acceptable articles into a process (AfD) which is kind of a crapshoot and hasn't improved over the years... I'd rather not see long term, highly respected editors/admins like
1453:
The article's OK. We have tons of articles on actors less notable and less sourced than this guy. Thousand of articles where the actor is described as a "character actor" and never got close to a lead/title role in a BBC production as Hogan
1055:
Knowledge is doing all right with all you enforcers here. Assumption of good faith works both ways and so far you haven't shown me any by accusing me numerous times on COI. I have nothing to do declare. You are welcome to hunt me down.
788:
reviews do not show sufficient for Notability; TOOSOON always possible. Came here as noticed DRV nom. requesting an undelete. Could be temp-undeleted here but result will inevitably be endorse or a determination DRVpurpose not sated.
731:. The deleted article cited a very large number of references (63 footnotes), however almost all of them merely confirm that he appeared in some role and aren't significant coverage. The only two I can see which might be exceptions are
232:
Yes you are one of the two editors, though I still respectfully disagree you applied "too soon" for him, when we can easily verify his many memorable roles/on-screen credits after 20 years, as long as we are willing. Have you finished
737:. The former is essentially an interview with the subject about a film he starred in and the latter has a couple of paragraphs about his audio work. I don't think it's out of line for people to conclude that these don't meet the GNG.
2006:'s new, odd, and false (and inflammatory) accusation. Are they the same person? There's no way to know for sure. There are procedures for looking into this sort of thing, and maybe they should be deployed. I know what I think.
1906:, which are useless and should have been discarded. The close was wrong, and the evidence before me leads me to believe it was wrong because the analysis was rushed and shallow (can't prove this, just using my common sense).
528:
of Knowledge. Here on Knowledge, we do not determine notability by watching a film, but we look into reliable sources. Sockpuppetry has nothing to do with notability as well as AfD outcome. I suggest to maintain civility and
683:
for the deletion nomination, that should be addressed on the AfD page. Also, please rescind your accusations of bad faith and persecution. It's getting quite tiresome seeing these cries whenever somebody disagrees with you
302:
access to knowledge. And I fundamentally disagree with this. And I apologize 100 times. Maybe Knowledge is indeed not the right place for this content. It's a burden on Knowledge to host this content. It hurts the brand.
2216:
didn't have time to do a proper close, he could have left it to someone else. If the AfD had expired and it didn't look like any other admin was going to have time to do it either, and since it couldn't just be left open,
1661:
2294:
2) Four word closes should be reserved for discussions that are edging toward bog-obvious SNOW territory. Otherwise, do the courtesy of engaging with with the other editors by explaining your decision. (This is also good
2305:
4) Difficult as it can be, you need to admit errors. We understand this can hurt, but this a workplace, and if you can't you won't be able to learn and grow, and we need admins to learn and grow or else the project may
1292:, there might be some coverage from the Indian media. Author fails to provide one more source to show us that Dublin Live is not a paid source. Dublin Live article appeared a day after article was nominated for AfD.
2186:
was of the mind "Oh OK, DCC and Drmies are for delete -- respected editors. And here's another guy for delete, TheBirdsShedTears and they seem to have a fair bit to say, this is good enough for me, I will delete".
1981:...as his response was "Please assume good faith. You are requested to provide sources here that indicates 'significant roles' of the subject than making false claims regarding a WP:COI page." The next comment is
2263:, I'm disappointed (you didn't participate in the AfD, but you did come here with an unuseful and anti-intellectual comment ("Close was an obvious delete, not sure why we're wasting so much time discussing it.")
784:(Following deep analysis of various points will call for a relist): Per Robert McClenon. Better focus on key sources rather than bludgeoning at the AfD might have earned a relist, but a sanity check scan of
2105:, I am not convinced with your false claims. It seems there are serious COI concerns regarding the subject in question. Also, if you feel i have any connection with User:Triosdeity, you may file a report at
2083:, who spoke even less -- four words, "The result was delete", which doesn't give any further insight into what if anything might be wrong with the article. I'll talk about the close specifically presently.
904:
No. Liam Neeson is considered notable enough for inclusion, so sub-articles about the subject can be produced, given the sourcing. This is not to be considered a reprieve, instead a larger responsibility.
1589:
didn't make up some of Hogan's quotes or what have you", that's a legit question. I'd assume not until directed to some contrary info, I guess? Anyway the interview is about a film Hogan is in, not about
2465:
has like six or more and that's far from uncommon, but let's say top 3 or 4 or 5 roles might be a starting point if you don't know more. (Screen time can be a factor, but it's not the deciding factor).
1573:, which looks like a legit mag about popular culture stuff (willing to be instructed otherwise). Somebody above was saying it's maybe paid-for content, but is there any indication of that? And I mean
287:
I rarely watch TV and films these days, and I said WP:TOOSOON on the basis that there was potential that Hogan would have a more notable role in the future. That is all I am going to say on the topic
928:
any thought. And all of my rage is from this aspect. I again apologize to anyone I offend, esp those who have few edits under their belt, but likes deleting stuff from Knowledge for others to see.
265:
during the investigation or he played the role of the villain massacring the Indians, then I agree it would have been a more significant role. Needless to say, I appreciate your criticism.
2691:
2453:
But "significant role" shouldn't have to mean "the main protaganist" or "the first or second listed on the credits and poster" I am pretty sure. What is a "significant role" varies a lot;
1675:
This is the only time when he is indisputably the lead role in a major production, but I mean right there we've put the lie to assertions that he hasn't done anything notable. Continuing:
335:
to put this subject into mainspace despite being told several times during AFC that the article lacks sufficient reliable sources to meet general notability requirements. In the AFD,
2321:
follow and depend on rules when they come here, but as we learn and grow we ought to develop a more nuanced understanding of what the rules are for, how each one came to be, what it
592:
and may take some time to meet our notability guidelines. The present sources are insufficient to fulfill notability criteria. Also, Dublin article seems insufficient for satisfying
2159:
So right off: I get that everyone is busy. I get that the admin corps is way understaffed. I get that there are maybe scores of expired AfD to close every day. I can't help that.
2840:
I am a bit concerned that Supermann's zealotry may have prejudiced the closure, and that had they been less bludgeoning the discussion would have been relisted for a second week
2106:
1988:
So, besides tripling down on the provocation with the mindless repetition thing, now we've got something even more troubling: we're switching over to a tag team pretending that
1797:
2284:
don't need to be mindlessly backed up. The admin corps is not a labor union. Instead, they need to be brought to understand some important behaviors expected of admins, like:
506:, but come on, after such a lengthy filmography. I respectfully just disagree with your observation. And I apologize in advance if you find me disrespectful. I am sorry.
82:, because their 24(!) contributions to this DRV have been disruptive. Responding to any and all views one disagrees with needlessly extends and complicates a discussion, see
1998:
is a new user who has already demonstrated that he's either up to no good or lacks competence to engage in discussion, with the provocative robot-on-a-repeat-loop trick.
633:
as it's clearly trying to push a POV (that we're massively misinterpreting the notability requirements here, a common theme regarding their behaviour towards the article)
1845:, maybe others. (I don't have a ref for that, but there are presumably refs out there... we can find them and add them in the course of time... oh wait, the article was
2009:
But whether or no, we're going nowhere here. The sockpuppet took over and had the same general belief about the article I guess (how bout that). But there's nothing
1894:. It's a legit nom, not super high effort, but legit. It makes two points, both wrong and so demonstrated at the AfD. Second, a super-low-effort 7-word statement by
1992:
is misbehaving. He's not, but of course these sort of claims can be a productive avenue to sow chaos, ill will, and emotion generally. You've all seen it I'm sure.
1182:, Sardar Udham is an Indian film. There might be some Indian media coverage about its representation for the 94th Oscars, including about the subject in question.
2053:
the nomination), we know that he actually had a few "really major" roles (Again, one title/lead role (or two if you want to squint), and a couple-few substantial
2407:, It indicates you criticise other editors and their options than presenting a detailed analysis about a non-notable topic which i think should be redirected to
2335:
1828:
the GNG if they even do. If you all think we have way too many articles on actors, you've got many thousands of articles to go after before getting to this guy.
550:
Also, notability is demonstrated by reliable sources (independent of the subject). Presenting opinions and personal views do not override notability guidelines.
1656:
1638:, and want to stand on the GNG, then you could try to say these don't count as "multiple" instances of "in depth" coverage. Matter of opinion. I wouldn't agree.
171:
48:
34:
351:
and GNG. In the discussion, only Supermann holds for inclusion. Some socking during the process did not affect the outcome. The RS Times article mentioned by
494:
knowledge is power. I just don't appreciate how a simple article of his can bring down the entire quality of Knowledge? I am not saying he is as notable as
2622:
but per BusterD Supermann has history so perhaps needs greater scrutiny, but does not mean they are guilty as there are other very plausible explanations.
43:
2615:
2640:
exist. My explanations are below. Enough is enough about TheBirdShedTears behaviors. The guy claims he speaks Hindi, but so far he has not even watched
1985:, an hour later, popping in with "Off-topic but you could be more respectful to @TheBirdsShedTears:, your comments are a little passive aggressive."
1625:
There's like 68 refs and I haven't checked them all to see if any others are more than bare listings. Let's assume not or we wouldn't even be here.
1091:
template to the temporarily undeleted article as I just noticed that was not done as I would have expected. Earlier versions can be seen through
2300:
3) For admin actions that are objected to on a reasonable basis, you should probably be reversing about half of them. A fair percentage anyway.
565:
But you are overriding them with your own read on the guidelines which is not the way I read it: Has had significant roles in multiple notable
1954:, here. It's hard to figure out what what he's up to, but it doesn't look too good. Right? This is not normal discussion. So anyway, if I was
2201:
I get that that four-word closes are common, and they're OK sometimes. I understand that "but we've always done this" is a thing people say.
2756:
2705:
159:
1921:, because he was the only delete voice that had anything to say beyond a soundbite. So let's step thru his comments and the responses.
1119:
source as it popped up a day after article was nominated for AfD. If author is really editing this with COI, they need to comply with
1296:
are one of the prominent awards and it seems if an Indian film tries to represent in Oscars, how could local media miss this report.
2644:
to really understand what the hot film was all about and why people have been talking about it ever since it came out last month on
258:
39:
2276:
I actually don't care that much about this particular little article. I'm taking all this huge honken time and efforthere because
2233:
approach here: failure of the system to provide enough resources to do procedures properly should not have destructive results.
2071:. Which is what happened between nomination and Drmies' comment. If Drmies read any of the AfD it doesn't show. The comment isn't
882:
In the meantime, once the article with prose can't be created, I am just curious if the subject can have a similar treatment like
451:
But before you create a draft, please make sure you post all discussions, including AfD as well as this one on draft's talk page.
2479:
cases of differing interpretation we want to lean to more retaining data as opposed to 404'ing thousands of readers. In my view.
2049:
It's a reasonable nom, no complaints. It's just that, with what was already in the article and what came out in the discussion (
1867:
we have three roles at the Royal National, minor roles I think. There are plenty other refs in the article for other stage work.
1864:
1859:
1486:
Alright. So a couple things, I'm mostly not going to link to other other pages, instead I'm going to speak English, and please
887:
2408:
1686:
1225:
653:
472:
254:
2726:
2649:
1816:
Skipping a little more quickly, it looks like most of the rest is filling out the CV with character roles and small roles...
1609:
859:
Appreciate it. I understand the guidance. My passion is films and TV shows. My other major creation since joining in 2006 is
180:
2856:
2775:
1411:
468:
250:
189:
21:
1822:, recurring character... Recurring character in a soap opera... that sort of thing. But there's a whole honken lot of it.
1556:
may not be super big it has a decent article. It's opinion, so reliability is not a factor. This link was in the article.
719:
Delete was a reasonable close of the AfD, relisting would also have been reasonable and I suppose we could do that here.
2637:
1811:
which looks like crap but is in a film series which is C-list notable at least. The book and the first movie are famous.
723:
isn't a guarantee that the subject is notable, even if the subject does meet it. It's an indication that the subject is
566:
2603:
2428:
2118:
1379:
1301:
1251:
1204:
1187:
1143:
1046:
601:
555:
538:
486:
456:
441:
2618:
to the best of my ability so that matter can be dealt without outside of discussion of Hogan - I was concerned about
2619:
2545:
2541:
2339:
925:
2885:
1946:"Which source(s) indicate his lead roles? Please provide here so that we can better understand your sources" was
1785:
1566:
1214:
Sorry. Provide what now? COI? NONE. If you want to read about its failed bid for the Oscars, it's right there on
1116:
764:
732:
482:
425:
246:
215:
109:
17:
2802:
2784:
1720:
1468:. That's unusual! And this was demonstrated during the AfD. I'll have plenty more to say about that presently.
860:
1818:
1539:
So as far as the GNG goes, the subject meets the requirements I would say, altho granted with little to spare:
192:, if not borderline notable per one editor who had shown me the light throughout the editing process. Thanks.
2751:
2700:
2627:
1434:
1336:
1162:
1100:
883:
810:
794:
238:
2079:
That's the entirety of the case made to destroy the article. The only other person involved was the closer
1736:, a fictional character notable enough to be bluelinked and who has been played by many bluelinked actors:
1594:
in the sense of the names of his dogs etc, altho you do have bits like "I'm a bit of a history freak" etc.
2872:
2849:
2845:
2814:
2796:
2761:
2740:
2710:
2670:
2631:
2607:
2599:
2580:
2557:
2503:
2488:
2437:
2432:
2424:
2396:
2140:
2122:
2114:
2092:
2033:
2027:
2014:
2003:
1995:
1972:
1951:
1947:
1933:
1918:
1903:
1880:
1834:
1773:
1477:
1438:
1402:
1383:
1375:
1348:
1344:
1332:
1327:
1312:
1305:
1297:
1277:
1273:
1262:
1255:
1247:
1241:
1208:
1200:
1191:
1183:
1174:
1147:
1139:
1104:
1065:
1050:
1042:
1028:
1013:
986:
971:
937:
918:
899:
877:
854:
831:
814:
798:
768:
747:
706:
692:
688:
665:
642:
638:
605:
597:
583:
559:
551:
542:
534:
515:
460:
452:
445:
437:
402:
387:
365:
340:
311:
296:
292:
274:
227:
223:
201:
98:
78:
Opinions are about evenly split between endorse and relist. I'm discounting the opinion of the appellant,
2002:
is a sockpuppet and/or sockmaster. He popped in from nowhere at a very convenient time to double down on
1710:, which is blulinked and in fact has a long article with 90 (!) refs. Indian film. It was distributed by
1529:
There's a great deal to look at so I'll hat it, you can read it if you don't want to take my word for it.
1041:
I earlier requested you to assume good faith. Everyone, including you has the right to defend Knowledge.
2654:
2484:
2392:
2205:
in fraught cases. I know that we're busy. I also know that turning that into a virtue is not excellent.
2136:
2088:
2023:
1876:
1749:
1473:
1085:
756:
720:
2774:. I could totally not have reached out to DGG back in 2017, had I not missed my 2006 contributions to
2229:
anything; the can always be deleted later, while restoring them is a lot harder, so we need to have a
2722:
2718:
2533:
2067:
comes in at the end of the AfD with seven words -- "Delete, per nominator, not a notable actor". But
1690:. (The movie is bluelinked and is a legit film, low-budget indy film, but it did go straight to DVD.)
1393:
1229:
760:
2859:, as I am generally not interested in live theater work, because there are no different shots, i.e.
1807:
1793:
1681:
1651:
1547:
2868:
2810:
2792:
2767:
2736:
2666:
2499:
2360:
1394:
1237:
1232:. The answer should be obvious. I am gonna abstain on alcohol by following Trump's advice. Thanks.
1170:
1061:
1024:
982:
933:
895:
873:
827:
702:
661:
579:
511:
398:
307:
270:
197:
2717:
When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to
1728:
is in it, and Lionsgate and Sony distributed. Romanian film. I don't think that the subject has a
489:, but you have afforded me with nothing but extreme level of skepticism, while those sock puppets
2746:
2695:
2645:
2623:
2540:? In my reading prior to this close, I noticed Supermann's block log. That led me to two threads
2221:
should have closed with no action, probably with "no consensus to delete" (meaning "no consensus
1837:("one of the United Kingdom's three most prominent publicly funded performing arts venues",) the
1711:
1430:
1120:
1096:
837:
806:
790:
416:
129:
83:
2444:
that most other editors accept that, altho many don't, and there's no "right" or "wrong" there.
2841:
2576:
2568:
2553:
1741:
1616:
1340:
1282:
1269:
967:
914:
850:
684:
634:
630:
626:
361:
352:
288:
219:
211:
2614:(edit conflict) Rightly or wrongly given stuff recently added here I've raised the matter at
1000:
where he has a starring role. This would be a lot easier discussion, both here and at AFD if
249:, had it not been the movie. And I do agree his role in that film is much less than those of
2517:
2480:
2404:
2388:
2132:
2102:
2084:
2054:
2019:
1872:
1854:
1619:(I can't access it cos paywall). Granted, not known at the time of AfD (but knowable then?)
1469:
1464:
The AfD was just really poor and the close was too. One problem (there were others) is that
1418:. While the DRV nomination statement did not seem to meet DRVpurpose the conversation from
589:
383:
348:
836:
Temp-undeleted both page and talkpage during this process as reasonably suggested above by
2658:
2411:
if supported by reliable sources. You misunderstood criteria no. 1 and 3. 1) "has played
2364:
2260:
1999:
1982:
1714:. (I see above that some people are saying it wasn't an important role, so not sure here.)
1666:
1552:
1323:
1009:
428:
popped up a day after the subject was taken to AfD, therefore, it is not considered as an
218:, because while Hogan had a large role in the article, he is not the focus of the article
245:, but we also got to learn about his world view as an Irish. I wouldn't have known about
1792:
that the Renfield role in this movie is negligible -- but I doubt it, since the subject
1704:
Subject has what looks to be an important role (4th in the non-alphabetical credits) in
2864:
2806:
2788:
2732:
2685:
2662:
2525:
2495:
2368:
2352:
1989:
1959:
1955:
1937:
1781:
1765:
1511:
1425:
1293:
1233:
1220:
1179:
1166:
1057:
1020:
1001:
978:
929:
906:
891:
869:
841:
823:
698:
657:
618:
575:
507:
503:
412:
394:
328:
303:
266:
193:
89:
79:
2312:
issue, and should be respected to avoid chaos and endless argumentation. But not more.
1909:
I'll expound on all this and prove my assertions below, you can read it if you like.
1392:- close was an obvious delete, not sure why we're wasting so much time discussing it.
2372:
2356:
1838:
1753:
1522:
I'd be surprised if we've ever deleted an article for an actor with a CV like Hogan's
1502:
1499:
1496:
1493:
1490:
1487:
1135:
1131:
953:
728:
697:
I have revised it and am sorry that it was not neutral enough for you. I apologize.
649:
521:
499:
490:
125:
70:
1967:
You at least should see those two aforementioned movies that are widely accessible."
2745:
I haven't made any COI judgments, so I'm not sure why you're accusing me. ~Cheers,
2641:
2572:
2549:
2532:
twice blocked them four years ago for sockpuppetry and undisclosed paid editing on
2281:
2270:
2218:
2213:
2206:
2195:
2183:
2175:
2167:
2151:
Detailed exposition on that and related issues are hatted below, read as you wish.
2080:
1899:
1842:
1769:
1757:
1737:
1706:
1415:
1286:
1215:
1158:
1154:
997:
963:
910:
846:
740:
530:
525:
477:
433:
429:
421:
371:
357:
242:
2537:
2256:
2064:
1895:
1777:
1745:
1634:
If you've already decided that you're here to get rid of articles like this and
593:
495:
420:
recreate this in mainspace by yourself, it is likely to be speedy deleted under
379:
336:
262:
1224:
which made it. It's like asking me to choose which 2011 film is a better film.
2529:
2248:
doing that. Long-term editors, and admins, are supposed to show leadership in
1788:. The amount of weight given to Renfield varies from script to script, and it
1725:
1635:
1319:
1005:
864:
234:
1134:
is not a violation, but refusing to comply with COI policy is a violation of
755:- No error by the closer, and no error claimed in the appeal. The appellant
2780:
2230:
2110:
1761:
1466:
not one single assertion was made in favor of deletion that is actually true
1290:
1113:
1950:'s response. So, now we are getting into behavioral-problem territory with
1695:
That's that, so he had "only" two title-lead roles (one if you don't count
2694:
regarding bad faith personal attacks and battleground mentality. ~Cheers,
2860:
2521:
2264:
2245:
2241:
2041:
1891:
1890:
So, executive summary: You've got 4 delete voices. One is the nominator,
1733:
344:
2375:-- even if you don't like them. Even if you hate them. Because they are
1962:'s response, under what I could call call a fair amount of provocation:
805:
I will be calling for a relist ... see my revised comments/!vote below.
327:(as closer): DRV is not for re-litigating a process which disappoints.
2379:
not rules. As an admin you must at least pretend to accept and follow
378:), but that doesn't affect the outcome. The AfD was decided properly.
2209:, doubling down here, seems to be trying to turn that into a virtue.
1585:
is a tabloid, so... if the question is "How confident can we be that
1004:
would directly and briefly answer questions, and stick to the facts.
2203:
That doesn't make them functional, useful, desirable, or acceptable
1246:
It seems sources are not available to support Dublin Live. Thanks
2520:, I must ask whether before your posting above you were aware of
1524:. If we have it would be very few and we probably shouldn't have.
1505:
in return, thanks. I know how to access those pages if I want to.
1199:
Please provide one to support possible paid source, Dublin Live.
2598:
question than contributing in an encyclopaedic manner. Regards
2252:
the project and its data units. This is just my opinion tho.
1871:
OK. That's for the career. So far. Next we'll look at the AfD.
1850:
1218:'s controversy section. I am not gonna root for the Tamil film
1940:
did rise to the bait a bit. But again, he answered the point.
1636:
404 the next 23,000 people who want to read about this subject
569:, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;
2155:
Merits of the close itself, this discussion, and other things
1841:("One of the country's leading cultural institutions"), and
2342:
may apply." And all this applies double if you are an admin.
2801:
You are obviously piling on, because of our old grudges on
2387:
This whole thing is just very troubling. This is not good.
1863:, which is the second lead IIRC. Second male lead anyway.
735:
588:
You may keep presenting your opinions. This subject fails
2225:"). Marginal articles that aren't obvious garbage aren't
2069:
you can't be "per nom" if if nom has been knocked for six
1800:
we have four roles mentioned and Hogan's Renfield is one.
1615:
which has several paragraphs just on Hogan, according to
1112:
When i was reviewing this article, i tagged this with COI
1857:
is the Abbey, with the subject as Algernon Moncrieff in
1123:
so that Dublin Live and other sources can be reconsider.
2863:, etc. Can't afford the tickets. Have a good day sir!
1420:
1153:
Dublin Live popped up because October was the month of
727:
to be notable, and subjects are still expected to meet
622:
375:
166:
152:
144:
136:
2351:
are different. You are not given permission to ignore
2278:
I want to see you more senior admins step up your game
1510:
And about verifying the bare facts of Hogan's career:
656:
for deletion too? History will remember this. Thanks.
1650:
The subject played the title role (which is also the
865:
It's a good day to die - starship trooper 3 - YouTube
520:
I see your comments on AfD and here too. Please read
2616:
Knowledge:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Supermann
2075:
but it is devoid of value except for counting heads.
2657:? There must be a conspiracy here. Good luck being
1285:, If Dublin Live, a foreign media article is about
467:significant roles based on his lines in the movies
241:got chopped off? The Dublin article was more about
2170:spent more than 30 second on this close. I don't
2127:Yes I hear you. No I'm not expecting to convince
2109:. I maybe new to Knowledge, but i can understand
1794:does appear 6th in the (non-alphabetical) credits
1680:The subject played the title role (which is also
1550:reviewing his acting in a film. The publication,
2329:is; who uses it how and why, in what ways is it
2178:read, skimmed, or didn't read the AfD. I don't
822:actor/film/TV that I haven't watched. Thanks.
652:." (personal attacks removed.) Even nominating
1964:
1657:Terror! Robespierre and the French Revolution
8:
2731:And you are borderline on that now. Thanks.
2421:unique, prolific or innovative contributions
1898:. Third, a super-low-effort 4-word close by
1805:Third in the (non-alphabetical) credits for
1699:), so let's continue with some lesser roles.
629:talk page. I believe this is a violation of
1732:role (can't tell really), but he does play
1598:I think, so it wouldn't have been a factor
1577:is there to cover films and stuff. It is a
1130:: Editing a specific Knowledge article per
108:The following is an archived debate of the
2524:'s previous attempts to help rehabilitate
1596:This link was not available during the AfD
886:, i.e. only a list article, as seen in my
190:Knowledge:Notability_(people)#Entertainers
63:
2690:, I remind you that you've been issued a
2036:. Let's look at the other delete voices.
1849:, so maybe not.) So let's see... we have
952:I can speak for everyone above in saying
2409:Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith
1833:And the man's also been on stage at the
1687:Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith
1226:Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith
654:Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith
473:Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith
255:Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith
2715:I also would like to remind you that, "
1971:Which is testy but not accusatory. But
1748:("he role he is best remembered for"),
417:guide to declaring conflict of interest
2240:OK. I'm only slightly disappointed in
1645:OK, so moving on to his actual career.
759:the consensus. This isn't a rehash.
533:while commenting on a specific topic.
188:I do believe he is notable enough per
2692:final warning at ANI three months ago
7:
2766:What BusterD is doing reminds me of
2888:of the page listed in the heading.
2223:that anyone has the time to analyze
1461:around his roles, not his coverage.
1975:decided to pretend that it was...
1958:I'd be going "wtf?". So, here is
1724:is bluelinked, and looks legit --
1512:This IMDd pages gives the basic CV
28:
2772:blocked by the Chinese government
2267:you are also a long-term admin.
1887:Alright. Now to the AfD itself.
259:enhanced interrogation techniques
2884:The above is an archive of the
2785:fr: The Great War of Archimedes
1902:. Fourth, the contributions by
1860:The Importance of being Earnest
1115:. I am aslo not convinced with
888:List of US arms sales to Taiwan
596:as well as notability. Regards
485:? People constantly talk about
343:appear to agree with nominator
2727:conflict of interest guideline
2650:The Daytona Beach News-Journal
2423:to a field of entertainment".
1660:which aired on BBC2 and got a
1364:One can declare coi by adding
924:because nobody else has given
1:
2873:15:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2857:Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark
2850:06:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2815:16:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2797:15:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2776:Superman Returns (soundtrack)
2762:16:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2741:16:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2711:16:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2671:15:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2632:15:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2608:05:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2581:16:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2558:05:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2504:15:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2489:08:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2433:02:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2397:21:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
2141:06:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
2123:16:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
2093:06:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
2028:16:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
1881:08:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
1808:Starship Troopers 3: Marauder
1478:03:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
1412:Starship Troopers 3: Marauder
1349:06:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
469:Starship Troopers 3: Marauder
251:Starship Troopers 3: Marauder
99:10:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
2638:Knowledge:Casting aspersions
1913:Merits of the AfD discussion
1569:is a full long interview in
1439:13:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
1403:04:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
1384:16:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
1328:22:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
1306:14:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
1278:13:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
1256:10:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
1242:10:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
1209:05:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
1192:16:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
1175:16:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
1148:16:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
1105:15:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
1066:10:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
1051:16:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
1029:16:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
1014:15:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
987:01:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
972:00:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
938:23:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
919:21:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
900:21:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
878:20:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
855:20:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
832:20:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
815:13:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
799:19:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
769:14:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
748:11:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
707:16:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
693:14:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
666:13:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
643:04:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
606:18:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
584:16:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
560:16:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
543:16:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
516:16:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
461:15:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
446:15:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
403:16:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
388:14:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
366:10:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
312:16:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
297:04:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
275:16:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
228:05:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
202:03:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
2721:other editors. Knowledge's
2273:is not. He is fairly new.
1136:conflict of interest policy
487:Knowledge:Assume good faith
76:No consensus, but relisted.
2911:
2725:takes precedence over the
2571:my analysis this morning.
1138:if one edits coi page(s).
926:Knowledge:Ignore all rules
415:, I think you should read
237:where his head as that of
2723:policy against harassment
1819:Kat & Alfie: Redwater
483:Jallianwala Bagh massacre
257:. Had his role performed
247:Jallianwala Bagh massacre
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
2891:Please do not modify it.
2803:Film censorship in China
1721:Dracula: The Dark Prince
1289:'s Oscars representation
861:Film censorship in China
476:importance of the movie
115:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
2636:Thanks. Didn't realize
2198:didn't say anything.
2040:We have the nominator,
1337:argument from ignorance
1163:Ridley Road (TV series)
884:Liam Neeson filmography
678:"If I think someone is
370:Thanks for tagging me,
239:Henry Norris (courtier)
2620:WP:Casting asperations
2438:User:TheBirdsShedTears
2417:multiple notable films
2190:There's no way for me
2034:User:TheBirdsShedTears
2015:User:TheBirdsShedTears
2004:User:TheBirdsShedTears
1996:User:TheBirdsShedTears
1973:User:TheBirdsShedTears
1969:
1952:User:TheBirdsShedTears
1948:User:TheBirdsShedTears
1934:User:TheBirdsShedTears
1919:User:TheBirdsShedTears
1917:So I want to focus on
1904:User:TheBirdsShedTears
1835:Royal National Theatre
1608:(EDIT: 3) There is an
1424:due to the sock, with
1369:Knowledge article name
341:User:TheBirdsShedTears
2655:Chequebook journalism
2340:occasional exceptions
1534:Merits of the article
1081:: I have applied the
2534:Thomas Price (actor)
2459:My Dinner with Andre
2419:" and 3). "Has made
2280:. Newer admins like
2259:, I'm disappointed.
1654:) in the bluelinked
1230:The Hangover Part II
2768:Cultural Revolution
2325:says, and what its
1853:with some roles...
1548:full-size paragraph
426:Dublin Live article
216:Dublin Live article
112:of the page above.
2646:Amazon Prime Video
2455:Mark Twain Tonight
1712:Amazon Prime Video
838:User:Djm-leighpark
2898:
2897:
2600:TheBirdsShedTears
2425:TheBirdsShedTears
2115:TheBirdsShedTears
1742:Alexander Granach
1740:for one but also
1617:User:CiphriusKane
1581:property and the
1376:TheBirdsShedTears
1333:TheBirdsShedTears
1313:TheBirdsShedTears
1298:TheBirdsShedTears
1263:TheBirdsShedTears
1248:TheBirdsShedTears
1201:TheBirdsShedTears
1184:TheBirdsShedTears
1140:TheBirdsShedTears
1043:TheBirdsShedTears
598:TheBirdsShedTears
552:TheBirdsShedTears
535:TheBirdsShedTears
531:assume good faith
453:TheBirdsShedTears
438:TheBirdsShedTears
353:User:CiphriusKane
97:
2902:
2893:
2759:
2754:
2749:
2708:
2703:
2698:
2689:
2518:User:Herostratus
2413:significant role
2055:supporting actor
1422:
1400:
1398:
1373:
1372:
1316:
1266:
1090:
1084:
954:Ignore All Rules
743:
183:
178:
169:
155:
147:
139:
117:
96:
94:
87:
64:
53:
33:
2910:
2909:
2905:
2904:
2903:
2901:
2900:
2899:
2889:
2886:deletion review
2757:
2752:
2747:
2706:
2701:
2696:
2683:
2659:Sherlock Holmes
2401:
2400:
2261:User:Scottywong
2156:
2097:
2096:
2000:User:Triosdeity
1983:User:Triosdeity
1914:
1885:
1884:
1697:Kingdom of Dust
1667:The Independent
1553:Blueprintreview
1535:
1419:
1396:
1367:{{UserboxCOI|1=
1366:
1365:
1310:
1260:
1088:
1082:
761:Robert McClenon
741:
434:reliable source
179:
177:
174:
165:
164:
158:
151:
150:
143:
142:
135:
134:
113:
110:deletion review
90:
88:
62:
59:6 November 2021
55:
54:
51:
49:2021 November 7
46:
37:
35:2021 November 5
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2908:
2906:
2896:
2895:
2880:
2879:
2878:
2877:
2876:
2875:
2834:
2833:
2832:
2831:
2830:
2829:
2828:
2827:
2826:
2825:
2824:
2823:
2822:
2821:
2820:
2819:
2818:
2817:
2799:
2676:
2675:
2674:
2673:
2592:
2591:
2590:
2589:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2585:
2584:
2583:
2526:User:Supermann
2511:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2469:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2385:
2384:
2344:
2343:
2314:
2313:
2308:
2307:
2302:
2301:
2297:
2296:
2291:
2290:
2157:
2154:
2153:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2111:one's concerns
2077:
2076:
2060:
2059:
2046:
2045:
1990:User:Supermann
1960:User:Supermann
1956:User:Supermann
1938:User:Supermann
1915:
1912:
1911:
1869:
1868:
1830:
1829:
1824:
1823:
1813:
1812:
1802:
1801:
1786:Daniel Boucher
1782:Don Stephenson
1774:Samuel Barnett
1766:Peter MacNicol
1716:
1715:
1701:
1700:
1692:
1691:
1677:
1676:
1672:
1671:
1647:
1646:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1541:
1540:
1536:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1526:
1525:
1516:
1515:
1507:
1506:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1462:
1455:
1448:
1447:
1441:
1405:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1294:Academy Awards
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1128:Note to author
1125:
1124:
1107:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1002:User:Supermann
990:
989:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
907:User:Supermann
880:
842:User:Supermann
840:. On my talk,
819:
818:
817:
771:
750:
721:WP:ENTERTAINER
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
671:
670:
669:
668:
611:
610:
609:
608:
548:
547:
546:
545:
504:Pierce Brosnan
449:
448:
407:
406:
405:
368:
347:subject fails
329:User:Supermann
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
280:
279:
278:
277:
186:
185:
175:
162:
156:
148:
140:
132:
120:
119:
104:
103:
102:
101:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2907:
2894:
2892:
2887:
2882:
2881:
2874:
2870:
2866:
2862:
2858:
2853:
2852:
2851:
2847:
2843:
2839:
2836:
2835:
2816:
2812:
2808:
2804:
2800:
2798:
2794:
2790:
2786:
2782:
2777:
2773:
2769:
2765:
2764:
2763:
2760:
2755:
2750:
2744:
2743:
2742:
2738:
2734:
2730:
2728:
2724:
2720:
2714:
2713:
2712:
2709:
2704:
2699:
2693:
2687:
2682:
2681:
2680:
2679:
2678:
2677:
2672:
2668:
2664:
2660:
2656:
2651:
2647:
2643:
2639:
2635:
2634:
2633:
2629:
2625:
2624:Djm-leighpark
2621:
2617:
2613:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2605:
2601:
2596:
2595:
2594:
2593:
2582:
2578:
2574:
2570:
2567:
2566:
2565:
2564:
2563:
2562:
2561:
2560:
2559:
2555:
2551:
2547:
2543:
2539:
2535:
2531:
2527:
2523:
2519:
2516:
2513:
2512:
2505:
2501:
2497:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2486:
2482:
2477:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2464:
2460:
2456:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2449:
2443:
2439:
2436:
2435:
2434:
2430:
2426:
2422:
2418:
2414:
2410:
2406:
2403:
2402:
2399:
2398:
2394:
2390:
2382:
2378:
2374:
2370:
2366:
2362:
2358:
2354:
2350:
2346:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2332:
2328:
2324:
2320:
2316:
2315:
2310:
2309:
2304:
2303:
2299:
2298:
2293:
2292:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2283:
2279:
2274:
2272:
2268:
2266:
2262:
2258:
2253:
2251:
2247:
2243:
2238:
2234:
2232:
2228:
2224:
2220:
2215:
2210:
2208:
2204:
2199:
2197:
2194:know because
2193:
2188:
2185:
2181:
2177:
2173:
2169:
2165:
2160:
2152:
2142:
2138:
2134:
2130:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2120:
2116:
2112:
2108:
2104:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2095:
2094:
2090:
2086:
2082:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2061:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2047:
2043:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2035:
2030:
2029:
2025:
2021:
2016:
2012:
2007:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1993:
1991:
1986:
1984:
1980:
1976:
1974:
1968:
1963:
1961:
1957:
1953:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1939:
1935:
1932:
1928:
1926:
1922:
1920:
1910:
1907:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1888:
1883:
1882:
1878:
1874:
1866:
1862:
1861:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1840:
1839:Abbey Theatre
1836:
1832:
1831:
1826:
1825:
1821:
1820:
1815:
1814:
1810:
1809:
1804:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1755:
1754:Tony Haygarth
1751:
1750:Jack Shepherd
1747:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1722:
1718:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1708:
1703:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1693:
1689:
1688:
1683:
1682:the lead role
1679:
1678:
1674:
1673:
1670:
1668:
1663:
1659:
1658:
1653:
1649:
1648:
1644:
1643:
1637:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1618:
1614:
1613:
1602:, understood.
1601:
1597:
1593:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1555:
1554:
1549:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1538:
1537:
1528:
1527:
1523:
1518:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1508:
1504:
1501:
1498:
1495:
1492:
1489:
1485:
1484:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1456:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1445:
1442:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1431:Djm-leighpark
1427:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1406:
1404:
1401:
1391:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1374:to userpage.
1370:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1314:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1288:
1284:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1264:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1222:
1217:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1097:Djm-leighpark
1095:. Thankyou.
1094:
1087:
1080:
1077:
1076:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
992:
991:
988:
984:
980:
975:
974:
973:
969:
965:
960:
955:
939:
935:
931:
927:
922:
921:
920:
916:
912:
908:
903:
902:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
879:
875:
871:
866:
862:
858:
857:
856:
852:
848:
843:
839:
835:
834:
833:
829:
825:
820:
816:
812:
808:
807:Djm-leighpark
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
796:
792:
791:Djm-leighpark
787:
783:
781:
775:
772:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
751:
749:
746:
745:
744:
736:
733:
730:
726:
722:
718:
717:
708:
704:
700:
696:
695:
694:
690:
686:
681:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
646:
645:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
613:
612:
607:
603:
599:
595:
594:verifiability
591:
587:
586:
585:
581:
577:
572:
568:
564:
563:
562:
561:
557:
553:
544:
540:
536:
532:
527:
524:, one of the
523:
519:
518:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
500:Colin Farrell
497:
492:
491:User:Nyxaros2
488:
484:
479:
474:
470:
465:
464:
463:
462:
458:
454:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
418:
414:
411:
408:
404:
400:
396:
391:
390:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
367:
363:
359:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
323:
322:
313:
309:
305:
300:
299:
298:
294:
290:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
231:
230:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:
205:
204:
203:
199:
195:
191:
182:
173:
168:
161:
154:
146:
138:
131:
127:
126:Stephen Hogan
124:
123:
122:
121:
118:
116:
111:
106:
105:
100:
95:
93:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
71:Stephen Hogan
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
44:2021 November
41:
36:
23:
19:
2890:
2883:
2842:CiphriusKane
2837:
2716:
2642:Sardar Udham
2569:DGG confirms
2514:
2475:
2462:
2458:
2454:
2441:
2420:
2416:
2412:
2386:
2380:
2376:
2361:WP:COPYRIGHT
2348:
2336:common sense
2330:
2326:
2322:
2318:
2282:User:BusterD
2277:
2275:
2271:User:BusterD
2269:
2254:
2249:
2239:
2235:
2226:
2222:
2211:
2202:
2200:
2191:
2189:
2179:
2171:
2163:
2161:
2158:
2150:
2128:
2081:User:BusterD
2078:
2072:
2068:
2063:So but then
2050:
2031:
2010:
2008:
1994:
1987:
1978:
1977:
1970:
1965:
1943:
1942:
1930:
1929:
1924:
1923:
1916:
1908:
1900:User:BusterD
1889:
1886:
1870:
1858:
1846:
1843:Gate Theatre
1817:
1806:
1789:
1770:Nonso Anozie
1758:Arte Johnson
1738:Klaus Kinski
1729:
1719:
1707:Sardar Udham
1705:
1696:
1685:
1665:
1655:
1611:
1607:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1551:
1521:
1465:
1457:
1443:
1416:Sardar Udham
1407:
1389:
1368:
1363:
1341:CiphriusKane
1287:Sardar Udham
1283:CiphriusKane
1270:CiphriusKane
1219:
1216:Sardar Udham
1198:
1159:Red Election
1155:Sardar Udham
1127:
1126:
1109:
1093:view history
1092:
1086:tempundelete
1078:
998:Sardar Udham
993:
958:
785:
779:
777:
773:
757:doesn't like
752:
739:
738:
724:
685:CiphriusKane
679:
635:CiphriusKane
623:this message
614:
570:
549:
526:five pillars
478:Sardar Udham
450:
409:
332:
324:
289:CiphriusKane
243:Sardar Udham
220:CiphriusKane
207:
187:
114:
107:
91:
75:
69:
58:
2538:Bliss Media
2481:Herostratus
2405:Herostratus
2389:Herostratus
2317:Editors do
2257:User:Drmies
2255:But I mean
2133:Herostratus
2103:Herostratus
2085:Herostratus
2065:User:Drmies
2032:OK, that's
2020:Herostratus
1896:User:Drmies
1873:Herostratus
1778:Mark Gatiss
1746:Dwight Frye
1744:(sort of),
1662:long review
1610:article in
1587:Dublin Live
1575:Dublin Live
1571:Dublin Live
1470:Herostratus
1335:This is an
1121:WP:DISCLOSE
1117:Dublin Live
496:Liam Neeson
430:independent
337:User:Drmies
263:Udham Singh
84:WP:BLUDGEON
2530:User:Yamla
2319:and should
2295:politics.)
2250:protecting
2073:disruptive
1726:Jon Voight
1429:Thankyou.
1221:Koozhangal
959:conditions
890:? Thanks.
680:misreading
631:WP:CANVASS
627:WP:NPEOPLE
333:determined
235:The Tudors
212:WP:TOOSOON
92:Sandstein
2865:Supermann
2807:Supermann
2789:Supermann
2781:Anita Mui
2733:Supermann
2686:Supermann
2663:Supermann
2496:Supermann
2463:Oceans 11
2461:has two,
2457:has one,
2231:fail-safe
1762:Tom Waits
1652:lead role
1612:The Times
1426:Supermann
1234:Supermann
1180:Supermann
1167:Supermann
1058:Supermann
1021:Supermann
979:Supermann
930:Supermann
892:Supermann
870:Supermann
824:Supermann
699:Supermann
658:Supermann
650:consensus
619:Supermann
590:WP:NACTOR
576:Supermann
508:Supermann
413:Supermann
395:Supermann
376:funny one
349:WP:NACTOR
304:Supermann
267:Supermann
194:Supermann
80:Supermann
2861:close-up
2522:User:DGG
2515:Comment:
2381:policies
2377:policies
2365:WP:CIVIL
2349:policies
2323:actually
2265:User:DGG
2246:User:DGG
2242:User:DGG
2162:I don't
2107:this SPI
2042:User:DGG
1892:User:DGG
1790:could be
1734:Renfield
1444:Overturn
1395:—Scotty
1165:, etc.
786:Redwater
574:Thanks.
345:User:DGG
20: |
2758:Parasol
2707:Parasol
2573:BusterD
2550:BusterD
2369:WP:BURO
2367:-- nor
2353:WP:NPOV
2289:damage.
2227:hurting
2219:BusterD
2214:BusterD
2207:BusterD
2196:BusterD
2184:BusterD
2176:BusterD
2168:BusterD
1390:Endorse
1110:Comment
1079:Comment
994:Comment
964:BusterD
911:BusterD
847:BusterD
780:Endorse
774:Comment
753:Endorse
742:Hut 8.5
625:to the
621:posted
615:Comment
410:Comment
372:BusterD
358:BusterD
325:Comment
208:Comment
181:restore
145:history
2838:Relist
2528:after
2474:So...
2373:WP:IAR
2357:WP:BLP
2338:, and
2327:intent
1847:erased
1796:, and
1583:Mirror
1579:Mirror
1414:&
1408:Relist
1132:WP:COI
729:WP:GNG
725:likely
522:WP:CIV
380:Drmies
331:seems
2442:think
2306:fail.
2051:after
2011:there
1730:major
1684:) in
1546:1) A
1488:DON'T
1320:Nfitz
1006:Nfitz
567:films
422:WP:G4
167:watch
160:links
52:: -->
16:<
2869:talk
2846:talk
2811:talk
2793:talk
2783:and
2737:talk
2667:talk
2661:!!!
2628:talk
2604:talk
2577:talk
2554:talk
2546:here
2544:and
2542:here
2536:and
2500:talk
2485:talk
2429:talk
2393:talk
2371:and
2347:But
2180:know
2172:know
2164:know
2137:talk
2119:talk
2089:talk
2058:for.
2024:talk
1877:talk
1865:Here
1855:here
1851:this
1798:here
1600:then
1567:This
1503:THIS
1500:LIKE
1491:TALK
1474:talk
1454:did.
1435:talk
1397:Wong
1380:talk
1345:talk
1324:talk
1302:talk
1274:talk
1252:talk
1238:talk
1205:talk
1188:talk
1171:talk
1144:talk
1101:talk
1062:talk
1047:talk
1025:talk
1010:talk
983:talk
968:talk
934:talk
915:talk
896:talk
874:talk
851:talk
828:talk
811:talk
795:talk
765:talk
734:and
703:talk
689:talk
662:talk
639:talk
602:talk
580:talk
556:talk
539:talk
512:talk
471:and
457:talk
442:talk
432:and
399:talk
384:talk
362:talk
339:and
308:talk
293:talk
271:talk
253:and
224:talk
198:talk
153:logs
137:edit
130:talk
32:<
2753:Ton
2748:Ten
2719:out
2702:Ton
2697:Ten
2415:in
2331:mis
2212:If
2182:if
2174:if
2166:if
2129:you
1664:in
1592:him
1565:2)
1399:—
1228:or
261:on
172:XfD
170:) (
22:Log
2871:)
2848:)
2813:)
2795:)
2739:)
2729:."
2669:)
2630:)
2606:)
2579:)
2556:)
2502:)
2487:)
2476:my
2431:)
2395:)
2363:,
2359:,
2355:,
2192:to
2139:)
2121:)
2113:.
2091:)
2026:)
2013:.
1979:4)
1944:3)
1931:2)
1925:1)
1879:)
1784:,
1780:,
1776:,
1772:,
1768:,
1764:,
1760:,
1756:,
1752:,
1669:.
1497:ME
1494:TO
1476:)
1458:If
1437:)
1382:)
1371:}}
1347:)
1326:)
1304:)
1276:)
1254:)
1240:)
1207:)
1190:)
1173:)
1161:,
1146:)
1103:)
1089:}}
1083:{{
1064:)
1049:)
1027:)
1012:)
985:)
970:)
936:)
917:)
898:)
876:)
853:)
830:)
813:)
797:)
767:)
705:)
691:)
664:)
641:)
617:-
604:)
582:)
571:or
558:)
541:)
514:)
502:,
498:,
459:)
444:)
436:.
424:.
401:)
386:)
364:)
310:)
295:)
273:)
226:)
200:)
74:–
42::
2867:(
2844:(
2809:(
2791:(
2735:(
2688::
2684:@
2665:(
2626:(
2602:(
2575:(
2552:(
2498:(
2483:(
2427:(
2391:(
2383:.
2135:(
2117:(
2087:(
2022:(
1875:(
1472:(
1433:(
1378:(
1343:(
1322:(
1315::
1311:@
1300:(
1272:(
1265::
1261:@
1250:(
1236:(
1203:(
1186:(
1169:(
1142:(
1099:(
1060:(
1045:(
1023:(
1008:(
981:(
966:(
932:(
913:(
894:(
872:(
849:(
826:(
809:(
793:(
782::
778:*
776::
763:(
701:(
687:(
660:(
637:(
600:(
578:(
554:(
537:(
510:(
455:(
440:(
397:(
382:(
360:(
306:(
291:(
269:(
222:(
196:(
184:)
176:|
163:|
157:|
149:|
141:|
133:|
128:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.