Talk:Randy Spears

message: How can his birth name be "Tony's Dad", when in the mainstream section it says:
Spears also was seen in three mainstream films under his real name, Gregory Patrick; which would be his birth name?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.83.57 (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: On Demi's new reality show, it lists him as her ex?! -BuddyOfHolly (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demi 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Randy Spears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080404082611/http://www.avn.com:80/video/articles/2759.html to http://avn.com/video/articles/2759.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://canbest.com/awards2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The edit and accompanying edit summary here is the clearest acknowledgement of an editor ignoring the rules against original research that I ever expect to see. In my view, every fact that's sourced to the interview on YouTube needs to be excised unless and until legitimate sources can be found for it. The edit summary also raises serious questions as to competence. David in DC (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prohibited original research 

message: A lot of material that is poorly sourced was deleted here and rapidly reinserted here.  I agree with the deletion and am taking up the re-inserting editor's edit summary request to take this to the talk page.  The material is almost entirely "sourced" to Youtube which is against  WP:COPYVIO, Imdb which is not a WP:RS, and two WP:GOSSIP sites - adultfyi.com. and nextshark.com.In my view, everything referenced to these "sources" should be re-deleted,per the initial edit, and not re-inserted without genuine sources that comply with our rules.Pinging User:Cullen328,Holanthony and User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for replies. David in DC (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: adultfyi.com and nextshark.com are still considered a legit sources for interviews (they are not blacklisted by Wikipedia). I disagree that the Youtube interview uis a copyright violation and I am not sure what you are basing this on? It material that has been made freely available on a public channel. As per previous Wiki discussions,  IMDb is a reliable source when discussing film credits, which this one does. The entry is furthermore supported by an additional source (avclub). I think the material is well-sourced and should stay. Holanthony (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Youtube - It is not obvious at all that the creator of this piece is the one who uploaded it. If you watch all the way to the end, the piece is credited to a website whose name is different from the channel. Also, if you watch the piece through to the end, you are then shown another vid, from a talk show that is quite clearly a copyright violation.  This Youtube channel is simply not one where we can have any confidence that it's videos are in the public domain.ImDB - The archived discussion does not stand for the proposition for which you cite it. It's a little hard to see, in good faith, how it could be interpreted that way.As noted in the thread above this one, the adultfyi site is emblazoned on the top of the page with the legend "Your Source for News, Gossip, Reviews and More". And if one goes to the main page of the nextshark site and does not conclude that it's the archetype of a click-bait site we should avoid, then competence becomes an issue.The suggestion that a site's absence from our blacklist means that it's a reliable source is little short of wacky. Again, it suggests a competence issue. David in DC (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, just because adultfyi.com presents itself as "gossip", it does not mean that the interviews they do are not legit. It had been a different matter if it were them reporting about an incident, but we are now talking about a one-to-one interview that they have conducted. Not sure what you are referring to regarding the video, it clearly states at the end of the video (06:23) that "Fightthenewdrug.org" is behind the video. The same channel that uploaded the video.  Also, I never stated that "a site's absence from blacklist" the tantamount to being valid, only that if used in the correct way, information gleaned from there COULD be valid. In this case it is an interview and not interpretations by the journalist. Also, the avclub source corroborates the IMDb info piece. Holanthony (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

text: I'm wrong about the YOUTUBE video's author and have struck that part.  I mistook a hashtag for the name of the creator (#PORNKILLSLOVE instead of "FightTheNewDrug"). I apologize. David in DC (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

text: David in DC is generally correct about the unreliability of the sourcing here. There is no sign that these dubious sources have been factchecked, as is required for BLP sources; for example, the subject's statement in an interview or interviews that he had a year-long role on Ryan's Hope is not corroborated by INDB or, apparently, any source meeting RS requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.   (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

text: The statement is no longer valid as David in DC has now retracted his opposition to the Youtube source. Besides, several new interviews have since been added (such as Ruby Wax, themaleroomtv, avclub etc) where the points are corroborated. Interesting that you now seem to think "INDB" [Sic!] is a "reliable source"!! Just a moment ago you would have said otherwise.Holanthony (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't put incorrect words in other editors' mouths. Self-published youtube channels fail RS by a country light-year, and your aqsserting they do simple reinforces your lack of competence here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.   (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

text: "Incorrect"? I even inserted the [sic] to make it 100 % accurate! So which way do you want it? If a Youtube channel is the owner of the video clip you'll cite "self-publication", if they're not the owners of the clip, you'll cite "copyright violation", is that correct? The reason being that there are several different Uoutube sources supporting the claims made and you can't have it both ways.Holanthony (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a horrid argument, underscoring your lack of competence. The fact that mpst Youtube posts fail RS and BLP requirements is not a justification for disregarding RS and BLP requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.   (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe you haven't understood the essence of WP:INTERVIEW? At any rate, this is now a matter for: .Holanthony (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, when consensus runs against you, you take your incompetence and go forum shopping. If you actually read WP:INTERVIEW, you'd know it clearly doesn't support your position. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.   (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Consensus? As far as I see it, you have none! Forum shopping?? In the habit of calling the kettle black these days? ;) If YOU read WP:INTERVIEW, you'd understand that it does. It clearly states that he said what he said is reliable. Also, the fact that "Fightthenewdrug" exercise editorial control over their videos makes it reliable.Holanthony (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Randy Spears. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140118084334/http://avnawards.avn.com/past/winners/1991 to http://avnawards.avn.com/past/winners/1991
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140118084332/http://avnawards.avn.com/past/winners/1994 to http://avnawards.avn.com/past/winners/1994
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140118083959/http://avnawards.avn.com/past/winners/2000 to http://avnawards.avn.com/past/winners/2000
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified