Talk:Frédéric Bourdin

message: I've seen a book about him on amazon.fr. Does anyone know if they've ever published an edition of it in English? Wandering Star 01:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: An IP claiming to be Bourdin has made this change to the article. Highly charged stuff. I looked at the website he provided in his edit summary, and it's a review of a film about Bourdin. I don't believe it fully supports the changes, but even if it did, it's not clear to me from reading the article what version of Bourdin's life the reviewer is talking about. The film's? A book's and if so by whom? Bourdin himself? I have reverted the material already and had a short discussion on the IP's Talk page. I'm going to revert again and invite the IP to discuss the issues here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the entire early life section is sourced to that same article - and almost none of the information matches. I'm going to pare it down further. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP initially cited a French movie review article (look back) and then I think he cited the New Yorker article. But, by all means, make sure the material we have cited to the New Yorker is accurate. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New material 

message: Hi, let's do this the right way.
My name is Frederic Bourdin and my request concern the article about me.
Because I believe it is relevant, I would like that it is mentioned in the article that my grandfather (my mother's father) wanted his daughter (my mother) to have an abortion at the time she was pregnant of me:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmmakersonfilm/9459425/The-Imposter-interview-with-the-Chameleon.html and 
http://www.sptimes.ru/index_bp.php?action_id=2&story_id=36586§ion=4
It is my opinion that it is a very important part of my life and should be part of the article since it would help readers to understand a bit more about who I am.
Thank you.--Francparler (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The first article doesn't mention this fact (just like all the previous sources you gave), only the second one states this. However, this is something you claim, not something established by independent reliable sources as fact. So if we would include this, it would be in the form of "in an interview, Bourdin claimed that" etcetera. But I don't see why we should include negative, unverifiable claims about possibly living persons in an article (per WP:BLP), and certainly not when the person making the claims is only notable as being someone who has made up all kinds of things. This doesn't mean that what you said in that interview and claim here is not correct, we have no way of knowing that, but it does mean that we have more reason than usual to be very careful about including such claims, and I would argue against including them here for those reasons. Fram (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

text: That's why I didn't use the "decline" template, but just gave my opinion. Fram (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Oh, and asking for a neutral admin on the one hand, but then going to Jimbo Wales' talk page, who earlier was sympatetic to your position and ignored your repeated BLP violations, is not giving the impression that you really want a neutral opinion, just a favorable one. Fram (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Bbb23 didd not ask for a biased review from me, and you didn't ask for a biased review from Jimbo Wales. I don't attempt to vandalize anything, I give my opinion on your request, but don't act on my opinion. You are free to disagree with my opinion, but just wishing it to go away won't work. Feel free to discuss the actual merits of my opinion, and whether there are mistakes or omissions in there; but continuing to discuss my involvement instead will probably not improve your case one bit. Fram (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

text: These are the unpublished memoirs you found and for which we have basically only your word that they are real and not fabrications? What reason do we have to believe you for this information, when so much of your life has been living a lie (well, many different lies) and claiming things that were clearly untrue? Why would you be a reliable witness about any aspect of your life? Fram (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Youtube is not usually seen as a reliable source, but even if it were permitted all we see is a claim being made. You could claim to be descended from Napoleon Bonaparte, but we wouldn't necessarily include the claim in the article if there were no corroborating evidence for it. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I do understand French. I still don't think the edit is a valuable or well sourced addition to the article. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Fortunately - or unfortunately - there are no deities typically involved with reaching consensus on Wikipedia.  Consensus is reached via discussion on the article talkpage, NOT by appealing to a founder, or even to an administrator (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI edit request 

message: WRT : I have checked , but can't find any reference for such a vow. Seeing that it is a rather long article, I may well have missed it though. Can you give the sentence where this is stated? Otherwise it shouldn't be in the article. Fram (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded the language in the article and added the reference. I'm not keen on self-serving claims reported in tabloids, but it's okay with me to include if it's okay with Fram.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I've reverted your change. Don't edit the article unless you've been given permission to do so. You risk being blocked if you continue with this behavior. We can only go by the sources. The Daily Mirror's one sentence is ambiguous: "Bourdin married two years later and has vowed he will never impersonate anyone again." I know you say you said that in 2005, but we need a source for that. I interpreted the sentence to mean that you said it after your marriage. I agree that that is not fully supported by the sentence, either. If we're going to put in the claim, in my view, it is relatively meaningless without pinpointing at least when you said it. Do you have another source about when you said it (and to whom)?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

text: *Unless another source can be found, my suggestion at this point is to restore the article to its state before the "vow". There's simply not enough context to warrant its inclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

text: It helps, but it doesn't support that you made the statement in 2005. Nor does it say to whom you made the statement.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say, I don't understand the problem with including a vow made by the subject of the article if it's properly sourced, as it is in this case. Anyone interested in Bourdin would be interested to know that he vowed to stop impersonating people. There is a source for this information and it should be included. In my opinion, this entry doesn't deserve so much scrutiny. There are a ton of good sources on the subject in general. Bernie44 (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Fascinating. So the reason you promised "I'll never do it again" was because of your cat; I trust Jackson is still doing well. A lot of confusing sources. At least this latest source puts your claim into context, even if it's a bit unusual. I'll defer to others as to whether the claim warrants inclusion in the article, but if it is included, I'd want the year and the context added as well. I don't think the issue is as clear as Bernie seems to think, but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Bernie44 is the editor (see above) who commented. I'm glad Jackson is doing well. As for working together, I'm not opposed to that, but it would have to be on the talk page. I'm not willing to work with you if you're going to edit the article. Try to remember that it's not your article. It's a Wikipedia article about you. You have an obvious conflict editing it, and your history shows you to be a bit volatile in your approach (no offense).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that. I think we're agreed on how the material should read in the article IF it is to be included. However, I'd like to wait a little to see whether there's a consensus for inclusion. There's no urgency to reword it, so let's give it a little more time.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Great. In the meantime, if you feel like it, you could brush up on indenting. That way our conversation wouldn't look like a ping-pong match.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

text: If you mean did you indent, nope.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Heh, get one of your friends to help you. To indent on Wikipedia, you put a colon as the first character on a line. Like a tab on a keyboard, that indents one chunk (I don't know the exact measurement). If you put two colons, that indents two chunks. So, say you begin a conversation here. You don't need to indent because you're the first person to talk. Then, I respond. I put in one colon so my response is indented under yours. When you respond to me, you put in two colons so your response is indented under mine. And so on.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok perfect so that's a colon (:) ?--Francparler (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but you should have used two colons because I had already indented with one. Each time you respond in the same conversation thread, you increase the number of colons by one.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it's fine, right ;D ?--Francparler (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it's fine. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 vow 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Frédéric Bourdin. 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/20101224021609/http://www.tribecafilm.com/festival/news-views/QA_The_Chameleon.html to http://www.tribecafilm.com/festival/news-views/QA_The_Chameleon.html
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) 12:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion