Talk:Ryan Wiik

Watch this article - very self-promoting

Ryan Wiik's article has been and still is changed again and again with super biased entries. If you look at the history back to 2006 you will see how it all started. The changes back then and still today makes it very obvious that Wiik or someone close to him is changing the article. It is very easy to see this because his users is trying to remove factual litigation articles and he is trying to remove that he failed his screen-test for Morgan Kane. There is several articles and a documentary that clearly states that Wiik failed. This is just some examples. Please watch article. Latest discussion at the bottom. Danlig55 ^{talk to me} 4:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Latest users Grassroot76, MariaSky and FilmExec seems too be Wiik or one from his team. Same exact editing and biased entries. Again FilmExec removed that Wiik has failed his screen-test. No neutral user would delete that. Danlig55 ^{talk to me} 8:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Danlig55: You are the only one that is engaging in consistant editing and monopolizing the information on this person. Somehow you have assumed the position of police and editor of this content and relentlessly refuse to allow anyone else's version to exist. This is malicious intent. Your Changes are inaccurate, misleading and damaging. I have been monitoring this situation for sometime and now your false information is causing problems which will be addressed appropriately. Your agenda is unknown but your tenacious changing of this page has a clear bias. Please refrain from your continuous efforts in reverting this page to an edit war. The changes that are now posted are unbiased to either side and generic and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmExec (talk • contribs) 07:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@FilmExec: Mr.Wiik. So you have now spammed the whole talk page with the same entry? No neutral users would remove the fact that Ryan Wiik has failed his screen-test. This is stated in several news articles and in a 55 minute documentary that is also attached as a reference. You are not answering any points to why you are deleting factual litigation and adding that Wiik is a producer. What has he produced? He is barely an actor with some small credits, so this article should perhaps just be an entrepreneur article?? Stop spamming, please tell me how you came to the conclusion that Wiik has not failed his screen-test? Lets start there before we move on, because I know when it comes to Grassroot76, MariaSky and now you, this will take some time. Start answering so we can see you arguments for changing facts. Danlig55 ^{talk to me} 9:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Danlig55: Your persistent and relentless stating of misguided facts are absolutely biased. Works in production are not disclosed in public. If you worked in film you would know this. Litigation that is private and undisclosed can not be stated as fact. A screen test that you have never seen and only heard one point of view and potentially and unqualified point of view is not valid for discussion, especially since the screen test has not been made public. No valid judgment of pass or fail or purpose of test if at all it was a pass or fail has been posted. Therefore, you are stating information that is not fact. Also, I am new to this page and came to update it as it has direct affect upon not only Mr. Wiik but others that may have a vested interest. You are updating and stating inaccurate information that may affect others. The litigation information can not be place here as not one public article has disclosure to what is being done. The internal matters of the company such as screen tests and reasons for expulsions or departures fall under the same logic. But your persistence to state that your opinion and limited knowledge of information is what should be placed as fact about someone else online is quite misleading and damaging.

@FilmExec: Will break down your answer under.

Point 1: Works in production doesn't give anyone on Wikipedia a title before it is done. They didn't put Obama as President before he actually became a president. So your argument about Wiik being a producer is wrong.

Point 2: Litigation that is private and undisclosed? I don't follow you there. All lawsuits are made public and the media has covered it widely. It is even made a documentary about it.

Point 3: When the CEO of WR Entertainment, Tasmin Lucia-Khan says in VG's documentary that Wiik failed his screen-test, thats a pretty good source of reference, isn't it?. On top of that it is mentioned in several other references.

Point 4: You say you are new to this page? Hmm. Very interesting that you then managed to post the exact same changes as Grassroot76 and MariaSky, (see discussion below). All three are using the same language and biased entries. AND...if you are new to Wikipedia, how are you suddenly a master in knowing what is allowed and not? You say that the litigation can't be put here. Dosen't make sense. So if Harvey Weinstein suddenly was done with all his accusations, either in Court or internally, you would have deleted all litigation articles from Wikipedia, please explain?

MariaSky and now you are trying to remove all litigation to make Wiik's article look better for him. I get what you are trying to do, but the history is the history.

Point 5: I have not stated one single personal opinion. Everything is referred to articles and the documentary. Danlig55 ^{talk to me} 9:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Please take a look at FilmExec. Now trying to remove over 35 articles and the 90% article. Danlig55 (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC) @Greyjoy: Thanks for following up on the article. As you can see, I have started an discussion. But Grassroot76, that has been blocked before is now trying to make the same exact changes that FilmExec is doing now. He just removed 37 articles and almost the entire page. Danlig55 (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC) @Anarchyte: Thanks for protecting the page. As you can see, I have started several discussions. FilmExec, Grassroot76 (been blocked before) and MariaSky are all doing the same. FilmExec has also admitted that he is close to Wiik, so that just shows his bias. I will continue to discuss, but then these users have to come with arguments that makes sense and not base it on their own personal feelings towards Wiik. Danlig55 ^{talk to me} 10:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: you are very wrong, i am not close to Ryan. This has nothing to do with anything other than that there is a relationship with him and we are working on developing it further. The removal of this sources was after many failed attempts to edit the article to something appropriate. However, after many attempts that were reverted by Danlig55' alterior agenda, then it was assumed that if the page was taken down to its bare minimum, information that is generic, then it would best serve everyone's interest. But it is apparent that the interest of this person is simple, to shame Wiik. You see, any information being divulged by legitimate sources regarding Wiik's corporate proceedings would jeapordize WR for insider trading and any information regarding the litigation would be in violation of their legal proceedings. So, assuming that both parties have not divulged any information regarding such matters, then the validation of the sources here which are tabloid sources is impossible. Those that are promoting this as fact are serving an alternate motive. There is a campaign against Wiik for personal purposes and this is not the place for it.

@FilmExec: First off, finish off you statements with a signature so everybody can see who you are. Danlig55 ^{talk to me} 11:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@FilmExec: That you are working on your relationship with Wiik should maybe stay between you guys, that is too personal for me. Anyway, I like that you are honest, but you clearly have a Conflict of Interest and are trying to help Wiik to erase his past. All that is understood, but that is not how Wiki works. As I have said on this talk page several times...I am following this article closely because of exactly what you are trying to do now. This article has been managed and edited by Wiik or someone close to him since 2006. With super biased entries. The article should just be the publicly known facts about Wiik. If you know insider information, as Wiik is your client as you have stated already, then Wikipedia is not the right forum for personal press releases and personal editing with non public information.

@FilmExec: Main point: {{Connected contributor}}Grassroot76 and MariaSky have done the exact same edits as you. You created your user today and it is very obvious that you are the same person. Several users have stated earlier that it is Wiik him self. If thats true or not I dont know, but at least you admit you know him personally. So it is hard to start a new discussion against the same person over and over again.

@FilmExec: Second point: You are coming with a lot of accusations but no arguments that makes sense. If you feel that real articles from Norway's largest news papers is to shame Wiik, you should reach out to them and complain. As I have said to Grassroot76 and MariaSky, please make arguments for each point you want to discuss. Then we have an discussion. You are only trying to complain to moderators, trying too block the page and have still not made one unbiased argument for your changes. The news articles are not tabloid press but the most reputable newspapers in the country. It's clear you are trying to delete Wiik's entire history but because he is a public person of interest in Norway, it's hard to make up an alternative version to his life, which has been widely publicised in the financial press and daily press which no one would call tabloid unless they were trying to actually delete someone's history. See moderator Cahk's reply to FilmExec below - from Cahk's talk page. Danlig55 ^{talk to me} 11:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@FilmExec: I have no vested interest in the article, or the subject himself so your frustration directed at me is misguided. You have now made it clear you are editing on behalf of "your client", which means you have a Conflict of Interest for which you did not declare in accordance to Wikipedia guidance. Further, please refrain from making claims/reference for legal action, as you will most definitely be permanently blocked. --Cahk (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Self-promoting

(Personal attack removed)

This article is a cross between spam and self-promoting. I've tried to look him up here in Norway, and apart from finding that his real name is Gunnar, nothing more than press releases turned up. References for statements like Ryan hosted film festivals and red-carpet award shows in his home country, which received outstanding reviews. would be nice, I can't find a trace of those festivals. --Ekko (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ekko: The page is now updated with a link to a newspaper article regarding one of the award shows mentioned. This event was also reviewed in the printed edition of Akershus Amtstidende December 6th and 19th 2005. Please see his IMDB page for a listing of relevant press if you need further references. --OttoHJ 09:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oyvindotto (talk • contribs)

pron

Is his name supposed to be pronounced "week" or "wick" in English? — kwami (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

His name is supposed to be pronounced "Veek", though I've heard many say "wick". Fleksnes82 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

@Danlig55, MrCheckto, and Grassroot76: All of you need to discuss and resolve your dispute here rather than reverting and accusing each other of vandalism/disruptive editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

For me --User:Danlig55 this is simple. I thought editors read the entries. The Ryan Wiik page is about a person. I'm trying to keep it to person. Grassroot76 is filling up the page with bias entries, information about a company, about other persons etc. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a page should be neutral. Maybe Wiik himself, Grassroot76 or others want to fill up the page with info so it looks more impressive, but lets keep this page about person. Grassroot76 has been blocked before as well. It has been constant vandalism for a while now. —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Danlig55: Please read WP:NOTVAND. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

--User:Danlig55 Thanks for information. Frustrating this whole thing. Will read up so I follow Wikis rules. Will not put in protection.

@NeilN: If you look at the editing done by Danlig55 you can see that it has clearly been disruptive with complete disregard for content, sourcing and facts. It will be futile to discuss details with this user, as his/her editing is non-objective. One example is the opening text which was altered by user:Danielmay1970 Oct 8, 2017 (affiliated user?) and user:Danlig55 who continued Oct 11, 2017 and onward with related pages James F. Cardwell, Duane M. Eberlein, Alan E. Bell and Michael Jospeh Smith. The agenda appears to be to change what Ryan Wiik is best known for, i.e. "founding the publicly traded entertainment company WR Entertainment" ... into completely new information now sourced from a private website, www.widerelease.com, as its reference. An abundance of articles written about Wiik clearly identifies him as the founder. Further, Danlig55 deletes factual information which is clearly and correctly sourced from articles, replacing it with unsourced and biased edits. We encourage wiki users with administrative access to revert latest edits, and monitor/semi-protect this page like it was done on 21:43, 16 January 2017‎ by user:NeilN Thank you. Grassroot76 (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I have started a discussion like @NeilN: said. Lets discuss @Grassroot76: Danlig55 (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

I user:Danlig55 will try to start a discussion about Tendentious editing. Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions.

This page is about Ryan Wiik. Not WR Entertainment or other people. Different users like @MrCheckto and Grassroot76: are constantly filling up the page with unrelated information. We can't have a page about a person where 80-90% is about other people or WR Entertainment. Entries from these users are extremely bias and self-promoting.

Please keep information strictly about Wiik. Danlig55 (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Grassroot76: Seems like it is very personal for you that Wiik has to be the founder when the it clearly states on the FAQ on WR Entertainments website that it was 6 founders. I can't see you argument that it is a private website when the company is public. All your entries are like make-up on the allegations against Wiik. Everything you write is very self-promoting. Danlig55 (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The WR Entertainment website is a primary source and should be used with care. If solid secondary sources are provided which clearly identify Wiik as the sole founder, they would take precedence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Then it should stay as it is. That Wiik has become the face of the company after he was sued for fraud and this blew up in Norwegian press should not give him the sole title as founder. His Norwegian co-founders Steinar Larsen and Øyvind Holm-Johnsen testified against Wiik in court in Norway, so for me it looks like @Grassroot76: is trying to erase them as founders on Wiiks page even if they are. So again, very biased from Grassroot76. If you look at this page all the way back to the beginning is has been very self-promoting since day one. I will not argue much over this specific point, but Grassroot76 is suddenly very careful about WR Entertainments website, but he fills up Ryan Wiiks page with 80% articles about the company. So quite easy to read between the lines here. You can't pick and choose like that Grassroot76. I want this page to be about person. It should not be that complicated. I have read almost every single entry since 2006 and it's quite clear that this page has been run by Wiik himself or someone close to him with extreme self-promoting. Danlig55 (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Danlig55: I can't speak for other user, but there have been no elements to promotion in my edits. They were factual, objective and carefully sourced from articles. Neither have I erased any edits reliably sourced from you. You have not provided any source to substantiate your dismantling edits, other than wanting to diminish the article. I will wait for @NeilN: guidance before reverting. Grassroot76 (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Danlig55: The company may be publicly traded, but is still a privately managed website which can easily be altered as needed. You should consider that the the company is involved in ongoing litigation with Wiik, and that such a website is not a reliable 3rd party source. Instead, you should rely on the many articles and historic references on this matter. When considerring your insistence on categorizing Wiik as a co-founder, you must see that your arguments to delete all his involvement (as the founder or contributor) in "WR Entertainment" section is unreasonable. Your entries suggest that he is "best known" for being a co-founder and listing several other people in the preface of the article, yet you delete the main bulk of the article in favor of sourcing selected litigation actions related to the company... As an example, you insist on the lengthy entry: "A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. [9][10][11] [12]" How are these line entries essential "information strictly about Wiik", as you state above? Grassroot76 (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Danlig55: I would like to see an example from my editing which supports your reference to "Tendentious editing". On the contrary, your entry: "...but later failed his audition. [5]" where in the article referenced does it state this? I noted your earlier entry where you used a financial statement published by the company as a source. My edits have been made with careful attention to objectivity in covering and sorting the recent and historic media articles concerning Wiik and his relationship to WR and Morgan Kane. Grassroot76 (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Example @Grassroot76: This is part of a revision done by user @Oyvindotto: 30 December 2006. One of Wiiks co-founders in WR was Øyvind Holm-Johnsen, so I guess he could have put in this entry. Anyway, read this entry and I will comment below to show how self-promoting this page has been and still is.

Revision as of 16:48, 30 December 2006 Ryan Wiik received an "Artist of Extraordinary Ability Visa", O-1 Visa in the United States, based on his international reputation. Ryan's career spans all acting mediums. He most recently starred in the thriller, Did You Get the Diamond?, directed by Christoffer Lunde. The film is due for release later this year. He has played the lead in more than five films, starred in a several TV productions, co-produced TV shows and short/feature films. He has worked on location in environments, varying from the sunny coast of Spain to the deep Norwegian forests. Ryan hosted film festivals and red-carpet award shows in his home country, which received good reviews. His credits include significant work as an actor. The Norwegian Actor's Equity describes Ryan as "...a highly successful actor, with an extraordinary talent."

Let's break it down. Today on Ryan Wiiks page there is nothing about these four films. If Wiik got a 0-1 visa based on his international reputation we should be able to find these films online. Nothing to be found other then a short film on YouTube called the "The Courier" (Original title: Budbilsjåføren). This film is 2.35 min long. Then, he has starred in several TV Productions, nothing to be found. Co-produced TV shows, nothing to be found. Ryan Wiik has hosted film festivals and red-carpet events, this was debunked by the newspaper VG this year.

Clearly you read Norwegian, as do Wiik. If you are using that article you have to tell what the article is about. The article breaks down 10 years of fraud and how Wiik has lived for free in Hollywood on poor peoples money. The article further breaks down Wiiks emails to shareholders with false promises over the last decade. It talks about how Wiik has wasted millions of dollars and that he has not made one single film. So you are right that the article details many elements of Wiiks activities with WR Entertainment. I understand that you want to create a false impression of your self in the US, but stay to the facts.

You can try to fool American editors on Wikipedia, but this has to stop User:Grassroot76 aka Ryan Wiik. Danlig55 (User talk:Danlig55talk) 12:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 2 weeks

Autoconfirmed editors can still edit but further accusations of vandalism will likely result in blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and self-promoting

(Personal attack removed)

I can see that @MrJimmy73: reverted Grassroot76 changes back to NeilN's last revision, but he wrote vandalism, so that was a mistake. And now the page is back to Grassroot76 bias version. You should join the debate here MrJimmy73. Because now I can't edit the page it seem. Danlig55 (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Grassroot76: Really?? You just wrote "Made edits as discussed on talk page" and changed whatever you wanted? This is just ridiculous. @NeilN: told us to start a discussion about content. You just skipped the debate and I will show how incredibly bias you are below. It is obvious that you are Wiik himself or a biased person close to him.

@Grassroot76: Proof 1 - How can you change the part where he has failed his audition to it was widely debated? That had 4 sources attached!! And you just removed it? It is probably hard for you to realize that you not will play Morgan Kane, but come on man. It is so obvious that this is Wiik himself. So self-promoting. 4 sources where one of them is an 55 minute documentary about Wiik. There is no question that he has failed his audition and is out of the role.

@Grassroot76: Proof 2 - Again you remove founders that has testified against you in court. Too obvious again and makes no sense. You pick and choose.

@Grassroot76: Proof 3 - You have written all your allegations against Lucia-Khan, but you removed all the claims against you!! What?? The lawsuit was sourced and you just removed it? Really. WR has sued you for multiple counts of fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, breach of contract and unjust Enrichment. Don't tell me it's not bias to take this away when its about Wiik, but you kept Wiiks allegations against another person?

@Grassroot76: Proof 4 - You write: WR's legal disputes with it's founder was widely covered by the mainstream media. What mainstream media? In the US? 2 articles in the US, rest is in Norway.

@Grassroot76: Proof 5 - , and his work to develop a film series based on Morgan Kane with himself in the title role. Really?

@Grassroot76: Proof 6 - You made a new section on the talk page called Wiik and Wr Entertainment that you later removed. Maybe because you read my answer and understood that I caught you lying? My short answer was that Wiik, or Grassroot76 talked about a 12 page article from Norway. Only thing he didn't mention was that the editor needed to pay to read it and then google translate it. So quite poorly source. And the article is a breakdown of how Wiik has defrauded investors for 10 years. Just because you know American editors dont google translate articles, there are Norwegians here as well.

@NeilN: Hopefully you remove the semi-protection so I can put in some facts here. Because its to obvious now how bias Grassroot76 is. You told me to start a debate and Grassroot76 is using sources that you have to pay to read, and its in Norwegian. Then I can just add any random Norwegian article then because no editors will ever google translate them to check. Makes no sense. Thanks Danlig55 (talk) 1:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Danlig55: 1) You are autoconfirmed so you can edit the article. 2) Foreign-language and paywalled sources are acceptable here. If an editor is caught using sources fraudulently then they can look forward to a long block or other editor restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

→@Danlig55: You are making some derogotory claims and remarks here, including "defrauded". The article sourced does not make any such statement. You should refrain from projecting unsubstantiated, speculative and biased claims. Wikipedia is also not a forum for detailing every pending claim presented in various courts. Grassroot76 (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Grassroot76: Do you have any conflict of interest with regards to Wiik or WR Entertainment? If so, please take the necessary steps to declare it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you for clarification. @Grassroot76: again didn't answer my questions and tries to divert focus. No neutral user would have spent so much time trying to cover up the truth and facts. You say: Wikipedia is also not a forum for detailing every pending claim presented in various courts. My answer goes back to Proof 3 above. Very bias that you mention all your claims against Lucia-Khan but not the claims against you. Danlig55 (talk) 3:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and self-promoting Part 2

@NeilN: Then it's back to Grassroot76 now most likely @MariaSky: @2600:1700:5ab0:57f0:f0f0:b0:c8ae:be41: changing the entire page back to the super biased version Grassroot76 wanted.

The user is now trying to erase all articles regarding litigation because of one article from Variety where Wiik's lawyer says a settlement has been done. What the user has not done is to add the Norwegian articles where WR Entertainment says that no settlement has been done, but they are working on it. I have not put in anything regarding settlement because it has not been resolved.

Point 1: Even if Wiik had done a settlement doesn't give him/MariaSky/His team the right to remove all past articles off him being sued for fraud or his lawsuit against the company. There has been no information about out in the media about a final settlement.

Point 2: Somehow MariaSky is using the identical sentences that Grassroot76 used and giving a super biased view of events in 2017 which have been widely reported in the Norwegian media. To remove over 12 news articles by credible newspapers is against the ethos of Wikipedia and MariaSky/Grassroots needs to understand how Wikipedia works. Facts need to be supported by statements and facts cannot be omitted or erased as you have done so MariaSky. You choose to spend over 50% of the article talking about WR Entertainment but fail to mention the publicly traded company has accused one of its founders of fraud over multiple years. You have deleted the other co-founders of the Company and created history that is full of holes, bias and does not give an accurate story. Who are you MariaSky? An alias for Grassroots76? An acquaintance of Grassroots76? Please use the Talk page to discuss.

Point 3: The user has also removed articles about Wiik failing his audition. Come on MariaSky, this is just to obvious. You removed 4 articles talking about Wiik not playing the role anymore including a link to a 55 minute documentary where it is clearly stated by CEO Tasmin Lucia-Khan on camera that he failed his screen-test.

We can add the two articles about the settlement progress, but for me it makes no point to add that to the page until it's final. Danlig55 (talk) 1:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Read Part 2 above. Started a discussion but MariaSky just changed everything back to his/hers super biased version. MariaSky has also tried to put a protection on the page for the second time now. This is not how it works. Danlig55 (talk) 6:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Now lets add user @FilmExec: to the list of users Grassroot76 and MariaSky. I have already started a discussion on this above. Alle these three users are making the exact same changes and language. Danlig55 (talk) 8:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Page is fully protected and FilmExec is indefinitely blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ryan Wiik

This is Ryan Wiik. I am tuning in to comment on this absurdly malicious and systematic attempt to rewrite the history of my life, with Wikipedia.org serving as a tool for such propaganda. Here’s your problem, there are not many, if any, publications out there to correctly reference what I have or haven’t done in my life. Simply because I haven’t lived a public life. Yet 3rd parties who are far removed from any actual insight, fill that void with their personal opinions and fake tabloid news, then lean back and say -- there that’s what you have done!

I am not sure that I, or any other living person for that matter, should be defined in a catalogued page on the internet which doubles for the role of an encyclopedia (now a thing of the past). It is blatantly obvious a particular problem for this website organization. Entries become either self-promotion or vandalism, depending on the eyes of the observer. I suppose Wikipedia is to be the consensus, but I can tell you that such is nowhere near what happens when outside observers (or motivated internet trolls) take on the role of an administrator or contributor – it instead turns into this prime example of a highly uninformed “edit-war”.

I suggest you either find some credible sources, or take this page down entirely. Then if and when I do share the memories of my life, history will dictate that, not you. Sincerely, Ryan Wiik 185.207.144.85 (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for speaking up. I moved your contribution further down (habit of Wikipedia: later talk page contributions are added at the bottom). Re. "... credible sources" – which sources would you indicate as the most credible ones? I won't say that Wikipedia would necessarily take the view these are the most credible sources, but it might help to know what we're dealing with. If there are any sources which you think of as tabloid journalism, these can be mentioned too. If we're not sure how to assess these sources w.r.t. our reliability of sources standards, there is WP:RSN, a noticeboard that can deal with finding consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Previous discussions of proposed deletion have gone nowhere, and the article was (and still is) very much overdue for an objective cleanup -- IF consensus is that it should stay. Therefore, I have provided an objective cleanup in the context of what the article aims to cover. Gryanwiik (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Wiik, please use the WP:OTRS system: on this talk page we have no way of discerning whether you are who you claim you are. Sincerely, --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Francis Schonken: Thank you for your attention to this matter. I'll share the contributing factors that makes for the least credible entires. These include users 1) basing edits on breaking news stories, from 2) tabloid journalism, by which I mean any news release from VG, and 3) @Danlig55's persistent edits displaying obvious intent to denigrate and harass. Wikipedia editors should ask @Danlig55 and associated users @HAFFEN7 and @MrJimmy73 to disclose their conflict of interest, and whether they have anything to do with the "the named shareholder" conducting the cyberstalking referenced at the end of the article. Sincerely R. Wiik 2A00:801:212:E835:9D68:636B:7B2B:F56 (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Answer to Mr. Wiik, his hired users and information for English speaking editors and admins

@185.207.144.85: @FilmExec: @Francis Schonken:@NeilN: First off Mr. Wiik or FilmExec (who was blocked yesterday). To me it appears that you are behind Grassroot76, HarrisB, MrCheckto and MariaSky, so I am addressing all of you, as in you too Mr. Wiik. As your users have previously done in the past, you also come with false stories and weak arguments, but you never present any concrete examples to support your claims.

You claim that the news articles are tabloid journalism, so please specify which national newspapers are you claiming are tabloid? Are you referring to Variety, where you did a portrait interview in 2017? Or are you referring to perhaps VG, Norway's largest newspaper? Or are you referring to Dagens Næringsliv (DN), maybe the most reputable financial newspaper, in which you did another portrait interview in 2017? There are no news sources referred to on your Wikipedia article that can be called tabloids like the Daily Mail, Sun, Star or Se og Hør (a Norwegian tabloid).

You have repeatedly tried to confuse English-speaking admins on Wikipedia that do not know how to read Norwegian and/or don’t have knowledge about Norwegian newspapers. Mr. Wiik also had a Norwegian Wikipedia article where the same thing happened. There was constant vandalism where he/his hired users removed more and more until the entire article was deleted. The exact same thing is what he is trying to do with this article. If he can't have it his way, he will sabotage the article. The reason is simple, and I get it. After controlling your own Wiki article for years, everything changed after you became a public person. And now you want to delete your years of past, by attempting to delete 90% of your article when you hired FilmExec to do this.

But first let me provide some more clarification, then hopefully a more fruitful discussion can continue at the bottom.

History of Wiik’s page

Mr. Wiik has clearly edited his own Wikipedia article all the way back to 2006, something that is easy to see if you look at the history of the page. After WR Entertainment went public on the Oslo Stock Exchange, and especially after Mr. Wiik sued the company’s CEO Lucia-Khan for defamation and sexual manipulation in March 2017, hundreds of thousands of people in Norway have been even more aware of Wiik and his last 10 years in Hollywood since the company raised millions of dollars to make a film on Morgan Kane, one of Norway’s biggest selling books, but the film has yet to be made. You have been manipulating your own Wiki article since 2006, but since you are now a person of public interest (just google yourself) today’s articles reflects your history Mr. Wiik in the most unbiased way. Each entry is sourced and obtained from the most reputable newspapers in the Norway and the US. We can of course discuss each point and reach consensus but then you would have to enter the discussion and make arguments with facts.

1 of several examples of self-promoting

This is an excerpt of a revision that was done by user @Oyvindotto: 30 December 2006. Øyvind Otto Holm-Johnsen was one of WR Entertainment’s co-founders in WR, so it’s likely he made this entry. Anyway, read this entry and I will comment below to show how self-promoting this page has been.

Revision as of 16:48, 30 December 2006 Ryan Wiik received an "Artist of Extraordinary Ability Visa", O-1 Visa in the United States, based on his international reputation. Ryan's career spans all acting mediums. He most recently starred in the thriller, Did You Get the Diamond?, directed by Christoffer Lunde. The film is due for release later this year. He has played the lead in more than five films, starred in a several TV productions, co-produced TV shows and short/feature films. He has worked on location in environments, varying from the sunny coast of Spain to the deep Norwegian forests. Ryan hosted film festivals and red-carpet award shows in his home country, which received good reviews. His credits include significant work as an actor.

Let's break it down:

1: Today, on Ryan Wiik’s page, there is nothing about these four films.

2: If Wiik received an O-1 visa based on his international reputation we should be able to find these films online. There is nothing to be found other than a short film (2.35 minutes long) on YouTube called the "The Courier" (Original title: Budbilsjåføren).

3: It is stated that Ryan Wiik has starred in several TV productions, yet nothing can be found online or anywhere.

4: It is also stated that he has co-produced TV shows, and again nothing can be found online.

5: Further it is mentioned that Ryan Wiik has hosted film festivals and red-carpet events, something that was debunked by the newspaper VG in 2017. <ref https://www.vg.no/spesial/2017/balladen-morgan-kane/</ref>

Of course it was better for Mr. Wiik in the past when he could write whatever he wanted on his Wiki article. Today, and after hundreds of thousands of people have seen the VG-TV documentary in Norway, Mr. Wiik has to understand that Norwegians can read the Norwegian language, and that everything on Mr. Wiik's article is obtained from strong credible sources and not made up to self-promote himself as an actor like it was in the past when his associates or him was editing it.

Mr. Wiik as public person

Mr. Wiik, you have been in the Norwegian press since 2007, and even before that you appeared as a reality contestant on Norwegian TV on FilmStjerne ("MovieStar") in 2005. You have been in the press constantly for 10 years, which is also why a 55 minute documentary was made about you by VG-TV that was published in September 2017. So when you claim here on the talk page that you “haven’t lived a public life”, that is simply not correct, not factual, and is a direct lie. Once again you try to undermine English-speaking admins.

Morgan Kane

Again and again you and your users that you have hired, have tried to remove the fact that you failed the audition for Morgan Kane. You have been in the media for years promoting that you were selected to play the lead, but after you failed the audition you suddenly wanted to remove that fact. That you failed the audition is clearly stated by WR Entertainment’s CEO Tasmin Lucia-Khan in VG-TV's documentary (see link to the documentary in Wiik's article). It’s only you Mr. Wiik, who is trying to rewrite your history to something that is not true which we saw yesterday when you/your associate attempted to delete 35 news articles simply because you didn’t like them. Your reaction was not kind. You implied a legal threat to sue Wikipedia when you/your associate mentioned to Cahk that “Wikipedia is open itself up for hard litigation in the future.”

Cakh's last reply to FilmExec/Wiik.

@FilmExec: I have no vested interest in the article, or the subject himself so your frustration directed at me is misguided. You have now made it clear you are editing on behalf of "your client", which means you have a Conflict of Interest for which you did not declare in accordance to Wikipedia guidance. Further, please refrain from making claims/reference for legal action, as you will most definitely be permanently blocked. --Cahk (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Litigation Mr. Wiik wants to remove

Mr. Wiik and his users are today trying to remove all news sources that refer to Wiik being sued for fraud by WR Entertainment, the company that he co-founded, and they are trying to remove that he himself sued CEO Lucia-Khan for defamation and sexual manipulation. There have been some rumors that a settlement was reached, but WR Entertainment confirmed publicly that a settlement had not been reached yet. If and when a settlement is reached, you simply can't remove your history because you don’t like it.

There is no rewriting of history on your Wiki article. All lawsuits are public and available for all to read. All news articles are credible and written by credible journalists. There is no private information in this article. If you believe there are sources on this article which are not credible, please name the newspapers and the journalists who you are referring to as not credible.

Summary of Mr. Ryan Wiik's statements

1: Wiik claims he is not a public person or has lived a public life. FALSE.

2: Wiik claims that editors have expressed their personal opinion on the article. FALSE. From what I can see in this article, everything is sourced directly from credible newspapers and sources in Norway and the US.

3: Wiik claims that there is fake tabloid news on the article. FALSE.

4: Wiik claims that the article is ‘absurdly malicious and a systematic attempt’ to rewrite the history of his life. FALSE.

If this article had been in Norwegian, every single thing Mr. Wiik is saying would have been debunked by Norwegian admins already. I'm spending this time to explain so that English-speaking admins can be able to see the full picture here. Again I welcome Mr. Wiik and his hired users to discuss Ryan Wiik’s article , rather than just blame, complain and delete.

For you and your users to delete whatever you want is not the way to do it. Three of your hired users have already been blocked after trying to remove sourced references and make false statements, so maybe you should have a chat with your helpers so that we can have a civilized discussion on each point, to avoid disruptive editing.

Use the talk page, and let’s start with this point. Who are the newspapers and journalists who you claim to be not credible? Danlig55 ^{talk to me} 10:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Note

Registered accounts and IPs claiming to be Wiik or representatives of Wiik can be considered as block evading and any of their article or talk page posts may be reverted freely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: You mean like this? General Ization ^Talk 21:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@General Ization: You got it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

Hi Danlig55,

Thanks for your patience in explaining the state of the article to me. I'm not interested in shifting its tone or content for the benefit of anyone mentioned therein -- I just think it looks very much like a work-in-progress, perhaps frozen in that state due to the edit wars, which is unfortunate, because it could be a lot more presentable. I'll quickly run down why I think my last round of changes accomplished that.

1) I moved Wiik's birthplace from the article summary into his biography because I've never seen it otherwise in articles on individuals. As a completely random example, George Clooney's article doesn't mention that he was born in Lexington, Kentucky in the summary -- it saves that for his early life discussion.

2) I removed the Wikipedia link to "Movie Star" as the translation for the reality TV show he starred in because that page concerns a company called "Movie Star, Inc." that sells "lingerie, sleepwear and other types of clothing." It has nothing to do with Wiik or the show he was on, so I'm not sure why it's being linked.

3) I think the phrasing that "Wiik appeared as a contestant ... but was voted out by the judges after the first round" sounds more professional and flows better than two choppy sentences stating that "Wiik was a contestant" and "was voted out by the judges after round 1." Is "round 1" a proper noun? If so, it should presumably be capitalized to "Round 1." Otherwise, I think it reads better in descriptive form.

4) "In September 2009 Wiik co-founded WR Entertainment, the six other founders being..." -- There should be a comma after 2009, and there's no need for a comma splice and setoff to introduce the other founders. The article can simply say "co-founded WR Entertainment with" and then list them.

5) "On May 9, 2011, Daily Variety broke a story" -- is there a reason the article trumpets the publication having "broken" the story? It's a somewhat distracting word choice, seemingly focusing on the accomplishment of the publication rather than the story itself, which is why I suggested "revealed" instead.

6) "Wiik announced that he would star..." -- If he later failed his audition, doesn't that mean his statement was purely aspirational at the time it was made? It would seem more accurate to state that he "intended to star" in the role.

7) "On January 13, 2016 WR Entertainment ASA became a publicly traded company..." -- That entity hasn't been introduced or discussed in the article up until that point, so it makes more sense to phrase as "WR became a publicly traded company... under the name WR Entertainment ASA."

8) "In December 2016, a group of shareholders wanted both Wiik and Chairman James F. Cardwell out of the company, but instead of challenging the shareholders at an EGM Wiik resigned from all corporate positions in WR. Investor Jan Henry Løken explains how this whole shareholder rebellion went down in VG's documentary "The ballad of Morgan Kane"" -- This is messy phrasing, and also has no sourcing beyond a mention of the documentary. I think it's much cleaner to restyle as "In December 2016, Wiik resigned from WR in response to a group of shareholders seeking his and Chairman James F. Cardwell's removal from the the company. This process was later chronicled by WR investor Jan Henry Løken in VG's documentary The Ballad of Morgan Kane." The operative action is Wiik resigning, so it should lead with that, then state the cause (shareholders seeking his removal) without meandering through the ostensible thought process, at least not without a citation laying it out.

9) The litigation section reads very choppily at the moment, with certain pieces oddly belabored (like having four whole sentences about the appellate process on the injunction instead of a single one stating that Wiik appealed twice and lost, so the injunction stayed in place). I'm going to guess that this is where the majority of the edit warring happened (which would make sense if the parties were duking it out in court while making changes to the page), but I'll at least point out grammatical and style issues:

• It should be "a series of motions to quash service," not "a series of motion to quash service"
• It should say "multiple claims for breach of contract," not "multiple claims of contract breaches"
• I'm not sure why "Million" is capitalized in "18.7 Million," nor why it's phrased as "18.7 Million of shares" -- the "of" implies there is supposed to be another unit of measure describing the shares (like 12 quarts of milk), so I think it should just be "18.7 million shares," unless shares *is* the unit, in which case, "18.7 million shares of stock."

The rest of my edits were intended purely for concision and flow; if they somehow distorted the substance of the case (which was not my intent), I definitely apologize. The existing wording is just very odd at times, like "The named shareholder has used media articles to make parody and satire pictures of Wiik." it's difficult to ascertain what that even means. But I hope going into this level of detail shows that I am editing (and suggesting edits) in good faith.

76.80.111.42 (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi 76.80.111.42,

Thanks for addressing this on the TALK page. As you now know after reading the TALK page you know that this article has been a subject for sabotage from Ryan Wiik himself and his associates for a long time. So when a new user with no prior Wiki edits starts editing it looks suspicious when Ryan Wiik's article is the first one you edit. First after the documentary came out about him in 2017 a lot of people like myself looked closely into the false history that has been here before and I will continue to watch this article so it stays true to the facts. Wiik sued and made international sex headlines but he can't try to cover up what he has done just because the lawsuits are settled. The story is out there and part of the history. It's like someone changed Harvey Weinstein's article to "5 woman sued Weinstein and now its settled" No context and doesn't make any sense.

On your 1.August edit you changed failed audition to removed from the role. This is a word Wiik himself has tried to put in again and again and was why I reacted. Wiik performed a screen-test and failed. This has been stated in articles and by the CEO herself in the documentary. You also removed everything regarding the prostitutes, something Wiik has tried to remove again and again. Wiik started the whole fight with WR and the CEO after accusing her for spreading rumors about Wiik offering prositutes to investors. The CEO came back with her anti-SLAPP where one of WR's investors states in his testimony that he actually was offered sex. So for anyone to get the context of the whole fight Wiik started, context needs to be here. So when a new user are removing exactly what Wiik has tried to remove himself the whole thing was got very suspicious.

But after reading your suggestions above it seems like you have good intentions to keep this article true to the facts and you want to like you say, clean up the language and not change or remove facts that gives context. It is both English and Norwegians editing here, so a language clean up is not a bad idea.

I will address your comments below and thanks again for your comments.

1) Agree, change that.

2) Agree, makes sense. Thanks for noticing.

3) Agree

4) Agree

5) Agree

6) Agree, to keep failed, but we can easily change to intended to star. The confusion here is that Wiik announced himself in the media that he would play the lead but he never told the public that he had to do a screen-test.

7) Agree, don't think it is a big deal but see your point.

8) Agree

9) Agree, your 3 points is good.

Also agree with the named shareholder point.

If you change everything above and don't remove anything else such as context or articles I feel your comments above are great.

I would tho like to hear your sudden interest for this particular article since you are new and only done edits on Ryan Wiik's article?

Danlig55 ^{talk to me} 1:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Danlig55,

I completely understand. I stumbled across the article while looking up information about Morgan Kane after a friend of mine who moved to Denmark a few years ago mentioned it in a conversation, and the content seemed oddly negative to me, at least in comparison to other biographical Wikipedia articles I've read. There could have been a bunch of reasons for that, of course, including Wiik simply being that controversial, but I thought some of it just didn't seem very encyclopedic, which is why I started by pruning what I thought were overly salacious and possibly non-neutral details. I now understand that Wiik has apparently waged war over those details, so I'm totally unsurprised my early edits ran into resistance. I don't have a dog in that fight, since I don't know any of the underlying details of the controversy, so if you say something happened a specific way, I'll gladly take it at face value. I legitimately just want the article to read smoothly, no matter what the actual content is. It's probably an OCD thing. :) (I do a lot of copy-editing in my day job.)

I'll make the edits you specifically approved, and once that's done, I'll propose any further stylistic revisions here on the talk page to get administrative blessing/input/discussion going before I do anything else. Thanks so much for your help again!

76.80.111.42 (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi 76.80.111.42,

Interesting and creative story. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now. Just seems strange that someone told you about Morgan Kane, a great Norwegian property and you ended up editing Ryan Wiik's Wikipedia. You admit yourself that you "don't know any of the underlying details of the controversy" so I recommend you to read all lawsuits, articles and have a look at the documentary. Wiik has been much more controversial than what is written in this article. Everything written today is neutral and has plenty of sources. Wiik and his associates are also the only contributors that has used the word "salacious". I recommend you again to read up on the facts before you speculate based on your own opinion and very little information. 48 sources is attached the article, included all lawsuits. Enjoy your read.

If you have OCD and want articles to read smoothly I think you have found the right website. There is thousands of articles that needs your help on Wikipedia.

Danlig55 ^{talk to me} 9:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Danlig55,

Point absolutely taken -- without having read all the source documents, I have no right to conclude any of the allegations aren't appropriately included in the article (and apologies for inadvertently using Wiik's words again, although offering prostitutes to investors is pretty salacious stuff!). I didn't even mean to suggest that the allegations might not be true, only that they paint a very stark picture when stacked on top of one another, which, hey, might be totally warranted! It was just surprising from a tonal perspective. But this has piqued my curiosity, so I'll try to learn more about all the background information. I'm especially curious about the documentary -- is this it? (I'm assuming there's no English version, so I'll rely on Google Translate.)

I wish I had a more interesting story for why I'm here, haha. I'm really just interested in finding out more about what happened to the Morgan Kane films -- it's crazy to think that I was completely ignorant about a book series that's sold 20 million copies, and because most of the reporting isn't in English, I had to rely on Wikipedia to point me in the right direction, which is how I fell down this rabbit hole. I'm really grateful for the guidance, since I probably wouldn't have ever been able to figure out the whole story by myself. And this has been a fun experience, so I'm definitely game to contribute to other articles. :)

76.80.111.42 (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Danlig55 I just saw this interesting thread and wanted to highlight that the ip-address 76.80.111.42 points to Johnson & Johnson LLP in Beverly Hills, which is a lawfirm that has represented Wiik in the past. Just an interesting coincidence? I think not. 142.129.121.81 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Self-promoting

@NeilN: Over the last year Ryan Wiik has published articles about himself on different sites where you can pay to be published or publish your own posts. New wikipedia user Dracones13 just changed the entire article and added a bunch of information and quotes linked to those articles. Reading the sponsored articles Wiik is trying to create a new narrative for his past so he could eventually try to use those self published links as a source for his wikipedia article. This is clearly Wiik or one of his representatives that has created a new account yet again.

Example 1: An article on Inspirey.com where you as an entrepreneur can just submit your own interview. (Ref article 65)

Example 2: An article on Fivehundo.com where you can can just submit your own interview. (Ref article 67)

Example 3: An article on Inventors.eu that is sponsored. (Ref article 66)

Example 4: Article 1,2,3,62,63 and 64 are just linked to his private Linkedin, website and facebook page.

Example 5: Wiik has proclaimed to be an actor his whole career and now suddenly acting is a hobby?

Example 6: From Wiik's article: he is an independent entrepreneur with several investments placed in entertainment and technology.(No sources)

Example 7: From Wiik's article: Claims he has spent 30.000 hours building the company.(No sources)

Example 8: An article on Yellopixel.com where you can submit your own blog Wiik claims he build WR from Zero to $100 mill over 3 years where in reality the company started 10 years ago. (Ref article 16)

Example 9: An article on Cnfmag.com where you submit your own post. (Ref article 20)

Example 10: An article on Medium.com where you can post your own stories. (Ref article 21)

Example 11: An article on Nohoartdistrict.com where you can self publish. (Ref article 24)

Example 12: In the early life section he writes about himself falling off a wet roof when he was 5 years old etc. (No sources)

I could go on but everybody gets the point. Danlig55 ^{talk to me} 8:29, 5 September 2019 (GMT)

Proposed deletion of Ryan Wiik

This is Gunnar Ryan Wiik. I am a living person, and the article in my name needs to be DELETED from wikipedia -- it is solely a hub of contentious and libelous material. It states that my occupation is: Psychopath. The rest of the article makes strenuous efforts to highlight a series of unfounded litigation claims. Does wikipedia have a policy to uphold and promote a biased selection of CLAIMS levied against a person during a single litigation event?

The article as a whole, have suffered persistent vandalism over the years. Since around 2017, it have served those interested to summarize a false and biased narrative created during a time of litigation. All such litigation claims and matters referenced were resolved as part of a private settlement. The company, in question no longer exists, as it filed for bankruptcy several years ago. This article qualifies for deletion, and I ask that an administrator to escalate it to speedy deletion if possible to prevent further misleading and damaging statements. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryanwiik (talk • contribs) 15:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gryanwiik: The article is ineligible for proposed deletion, as it was already proposed for deletion once.[2] To be deleted, it would have to go through the WP:Articles for deletion process. The article would not be deleted on the basis of it being subject to vandalism. Instead, the community would have to reach consensus that the article does not meet the appropriate criteria for having an article—which would largely mean determining that Wiik has done nothing of notability as an individual and is, therefore, unsuitable to have any article written about him. —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred Nothing has happened in regards to condensing or cleaning up the article after previous discussions for proposed deletion. Gryanwiik (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)