Jump to content

Talk:John Kassir

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

"Preferred" Voice Actor?

[edit]

John Kassir has played Deadpool in X-Men Legends II: Rise of Apocalypse and the two Marvel Ultimate Alliance games. Nolan North has voiced him in Hulk Vs Wolverine, Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions, and Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds. That's three times each, nothing to indicate Mr. Kassir is the preferred voice actor for Deadpool. The statement is conjecture, so I am removing it. 207.216.222.107 (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Kassir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth

[edit]

Some Wikipedians seem to think that Mr. Kassir's birthdate is an area of dispute. Literally every source I can find says October 24, 1957 is the date of his birth. There is no dispute. Some famous figures' birthdays ARE an area of dispute, because different sources say different things. Not Mr. Kassir

--- Dpm12 (10:09 PDT; 19 August 2016)

Copied relevant content from User talk: Ponyo (this version) below; see that page's history for attribution.

Can you ease up on this sort of thing and discuss before you vaporize? That other user is losing their mind over this, I assume you know that this isn't a big deal, and your edit summaries range from unhelpful to incoherent. "...no reliable non-compendia sources meeting WP:RS have been provided." That is, if I'm reading it right, not supported by facts on hand. (And I might not be reading it right, since, to be brutally honest, words like "non-compendia" are particularly unhelpful bits of jargon.) How do we know that the prose at TCM is a compendium? If I sourced it to Hollywood.com, which I'm almost positive is not a compiler and instead is a purveyor of original expertise and research, do I have any sort of guarantee that, per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, you'll discuss this stuff before reverting again? RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that one editor uses the edit summary "EVERY SINGLE OTHER SOURCE lists him as being born on this day. There's NO dispute. Just like other Wikipedians who are advanced and have a lot of edits, you feel the need to erase stuff like that out of boredom.", while I leave one pointing to the two policy pages explaining the removal, yet it's my edit summary that you deem unhelpful. I have no intention of leaving a disputed poorly-sourced date of birth in a BLP because another editor fails to grasp what constitutes a reliable source or why we require one in cases such as this.
The TCM content is simply a database of machine-imported content, it does not include the editorial oversight ("a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy") required. Hollywood.com is also a tertiary source database and cannot be used to support disputed BLP content. Their own Terms of Use explicitly state "You understand that you will be exposed to user material from a variety of publishers and that Hollywood.com is not responsible for the accuracy, usefulness, safety, or intellectual property rights of or relating to such user material. You further understand and acknowledge that you may be exposed to user material that is inaccurate, offensive, indecent, or objectionable..". I have no intention of not enforcing our core policies in this case; if no source meeting our requirements are available, then the date stays out. I've searched extensively for a reliable source myself using LexusNexus and other newspaper access sites and have been unable to verify the date, hence WP:DOB and WP:BLPSOURCES applies. I've already noted this on the article talk page. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo: "I find it interesting that one editor uses the edit summary 'EVERY SINGLE OTHER SOURCE lists him as being born on this day. There's NO dispute. Just like other Wikipedians who are advanced and have a lot of edits, you feel the need to erase stuff like that out of boredom.', while I leave one pointing to the two policy pages explaining the removal, yet it's my edit summary that you deem unhelpful." For what it's worth, I planned on scolding over that junk edit summary, but when I found TCM, I figured I shouldn't bother. And a quick look at that editor's user page should give away dead-to-rights why you're going to be held to a different standard. But maybe I'm not being fair. Am I wrong to assume an admin ought to know why coherent edit summaries are important? Am I wrong to be annoyed that when I raise an objection to something, rather than explain why I'm right or wrong, you essentially said, "but look at that edit summary. It's way worse?"
"I have no intention of leaving a disputed poorly-sourced date of birth in a BLP because another editor fails to grasp what constitutes a reliable source or why we require one in cases such as this." It's disputed? Where? Especially since, per the allowance that says "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object" can be used, we can include it? Because we know Kassir is quite alright that people think he was born on October 24th, 1957. You, uh, know that about him, right?
"The TCM content is simply a database of machine-imported content, it does not include the editorial oversight ("a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy") required." I asked how you came to this conclusion ("How do we know that the prose at TCM is a compendium?") and instead, you restated what you originally said. I promise, I read this claim the first time you made it. I was wondering how you know it.
As for using Hollywood.com as a source, see their "About Us" page, specifically the second-to-last sentence: "In addition, we have the most robust entertainment data available. Hollywood.com’s data is powered by Baseline, the leading provider in verified entertainment data used by almost every major studio, broadcast and cable TV network." Since your find at the terms of service page and my find at this page (seem to) directly contradict each other, is there a policy that says which we go with? RunnyAmiga (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To your first point, I didn't just point to the other editor's edit summary, I also commented on my own, which included two links to the policy-based reasons I was removing the disputed date. You don't like my summary and find it "incoherent". I see no problem with it at all and don't see any need to discuss it further.
  • To your second point, a date of 1962 has also been added to the article example here and here. Neither date is supported by reliable sources so I removed the conflicting dates with an explanation (here). At no point since that time has a reliable source ever been presented to verify either date.
  • Also to your second point, you've misinterpreted "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". The point of the clause is that if the information appears in a self-published source or similar directly linked to the subject (e.g. an official website or campaign), then the source can be used. Random online databases are not "linked to the subject" in any way. If you're inferring that because the information appears on websites such as IMDb that the subject therefore "approves", that's not the intent of that sentence.
  • To your third point, I know that the TCM is a compendium in that it is an online database akin to IMDb and NNDb. (Compendium: "a collection of concise but detailed information about a particular subject, especially in a book or other publication." "a collection of things, especially one systematically gathered".) I know this because I check references when they are added to ensure they meet WP:RS and noted this was another tertiary source, equally as unreliable as the others.
  • As to your final point, The "About Us" section is a website's marketing page that includes plenty of verbiage regarding why they are so awesome and why you should use their product. The Terms of Use is the legalese that covers their asses when it comes to the content/product they produce. In this case they spell out clearly that they pull data from a number of resources of varying levels of reliability and that they do not vouch for the accuracy of any of their content. That is the opposite of what is required by WP:BLPSOURCES.
  • Bottom line, if a reliable source can be found that verifies a specific date (or year) of birth for Kassir then it can be added to the article. Until then, it stays out as disputed BLP content. If you have a source you think may meet WP:RS but are unsure, float it by WP:RSN. I have absolutely zero to add to this conversation at this point and don't plan to participate further other than to cross-post this to the article talk page where it should have taken place from the get-go. WP:BLPN is also available if you wish to discuss this with other editors knowledgeable about BLP policy.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ponyo, you're being ridiculous, and you know you are. A couple of vandals edit the page, and THIS is your response. I'm about at my wit's end with admins like you who, yes out of boredom and selfishness, have nothing better to do then act like a conniving jerk. At this point, we probably don't even need a ref. Unlike some people, and rightfully so, Kassir's date of birth is not dispited. I won't stop talking about this. I agree with RunnyAmiga. Instead of just deleting it, let's discuss.
--Dpm12 (11:33 PDT; 20 August 2016)
@Ponyo and Dpm12: I honestly forgot about all of this and I'm not going to react to all the back-and-forth. None of it's helpful. Ponyo, I apologize for getting confrontational. Whether or not we agree on this or that, there's no real need for me to strap the gloves on and go in. Like I told User:Dpm12, we're not changing the world here. It's about the Crypt Keeper guy's birth date.
Let's focus on content. Dpm12: The issue I had with your source, and your claim to be backed up by tons of sources, is that they all seem bot-created, user-created (like IMDb), or databases of information that were collected from unknown places. And to be clear, Ponyo is right: if every source you can find falls under any of these definitions, none of them are going to be any good. We can't confirm that the information added was done by an expert or a professional who would have access to correct information.
And Dpm12, one thing she's said is really important and in your rush to insult her again, you've missed it entirely: She's searched like crazy to find verification of Kassir's birthdate. Googling is one thing. You've done it, I've done it, she's done it. But searching LexisNexis, which is a professional-grade database that isn't accessible for free, is another. Everything else be damned, she's doing this because she wants this information to go into the article. As minor as it seems (again! Dude! The date of birth of the Crypt Keeper guy!), all three of us are putting in real effort to verify this information and get it in here.
Ponyo: Regarding "...if the information appears in a self-published source or similar directly linked to the subject (e.g. an official website or campaign), then the source can be used." Guess what I found? I'll caution you beforehand that it's extremely weak, but this might verify Kassir's birthdate and, per WP:DOB, his comfort level with people knowing it.
If you're on Twitter, you can see that the first of two retweets this tweet got was @JohnKassir. (If you're not on Twitter, let me know and I'll get a screenshot.) The @JohnKassir account isn't verified by Twitter, but several aspects of it tip off that it's real. I know this is weak sauce but stick with me here:
1. Twitter has an ironclad policy barring the use of the word "official" in the bios of non-official accounts. This account has the word "official" in its bio.
2. The follower count. If this account were fake, there's no way it would have 4,100 followers. That's the perfect number for someone like Kassir, a well-known performer who you probably wouldn't recognize unless he started doing that voice.
3. The media section contains amateur, low-quality photos, including selfies, of Kassir. These photos don't appear anywhere else online except for his Facebook page.
4. That's not to mention another obvious question. Fake Will Ferrell Twitter accounts, I get. Even a fake Crypt Keeper account, sure. Who the hell's gonna set up a fake John Kassir account, curate it for five-and-a-half years, and include real references to conventions, midnight movie guest appearances, and other such things going on in Kassir's public life? (For what it's worth, I think this is the most obvious tell that this is really Kassir.)
I know you're thinking that this is front-to-back bullcrap but wait: WP:DOB says
"Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object."
The second part of that sentence repeats the word "sources" distinct from the use of it in the first part. I believe that and the word "or" are there to differentiate it such that the second part allows information to stay even if the source doesn't meet the WP:RS standard as long as the source is connected to the subject and the subject doesn't mind the information getting out there. I believe it can be reasonably inferred that this Twitter account belongs to Kassir, and I believe that Kassir's retweeting the Toon Hall of Fame tweet means it can be reasonably inferred that the information contained within is accurate and its dissemination is not something Kassir would object to.
And Ponyo, if you've made it this far without your eyes rolling clean out of your head and onto the floor, one more thing: if you're allowed, can you unilaterally move this page to Talk:John Kassir and move that page to here? This guy is not, contrary to the claim of that redirect page's creator, better known as "Johnny." Thank you again, I apologize again, and no matter what, I'll defer to your judgment on this because you're tired of it and believe me, I am too. RunnyAmiga (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep this short in hopes of sparing any future readers the pain of having to read through this very long thread. First, Dpm12, you are blowing this completely out of proportion. Using policy-based discussions to launch personal attacks and displaying a disregard for one of Wikipedia's core policies will never bring about your desired result. RunnyAmiga, regarding the Twitter source, I really would hesitate to use an unofficial Twitter account. While I admire your thorough research on the topic, I don't believe that we should include personal information in a BLP based on suppositions and WP:SYNTH. That being said, this noticeboard may be better able to assess the viablity of the unverified Twitter source. You've already laid out your reasoning above, perhaps you can repost your assessment/reasoning there and get a rubber stamp on the source so this can be potentially laid to rest? Finally, I've moved this talk page to match the article name as you suggested.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Kassir. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Kassir&oldid=1249916367"