Talk:Bruce Payne

message: This disagreement has been referred to the Wikipedia:Third opinion page for negotiation at Ariel23's request.
Once again Irish Guy avoids dealing with the actual issue I raise—namely, that he has said something about me that is demonstrably untrue and hurts my reputation. I wonder why… He obfuscates once again by merely putting up a link to a Wiki legal policy instead of addressing my complaint. So much for "good faith" discussion. Just for the record, I wasn’t threatening him as he implies--What? A lawsuit? Now how silly would that be? And besides, he's not worth it. I was simply pointing out his hypocrisy. He condemns me again and again, like a broken record or robot, for violating Wiki policy yet he himself is violating Wiki policy with a defamatory statement about his opponent. He, as an editor, has an obligation to act in an appropriate and decorous manner but he has not done so. Whose is the worse offense--my alleged "spamming" or his defamation?  But enough is enough. What’s the point? This is getting us nowhere. I’ll follow Wiki Guidelines and disengage and have nothing more to say till I communicate with a neutral third party.
Ariel23 01:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:LEGAL. A few examples of your spamming:      and so on. IrishGuy talk 03:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Sorry to say, Ariel, but if you check out Links normally to be avoided, you will see that the website clearly violates #11, if not #3 as well. It shouldn't be kept here.  hmwith  talk 17:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: *I have pieced together the article from the biography on the official website, and various fan sites. - Mrcurly 10:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncategorized talk

message: There is just so much wrong with this article... way to long for any actor with way too much name dropping and other issues  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.218.226 (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Way too long

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bruce Payne. 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/20110718144327/http://www.tnmc.org/batcave/dandd.html to http://www.tnmc.org/batcave/dandd.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) 06:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Much of this article is written like an autobiography there also un-sourced claims which *could* maybe represent an autobiography. I am not saying this for certain however it does seem as though large sections of the article is written by someone at least close to Bruce Payne. Many of the sources also fail, The Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (1980) An Entertainment, 19 November 1980 programme, GBS Theatre: London, may exists however I can't find any links with that name after much digging. It does seem there could possibly be Original Research in this article, however I would like to make this clear the only evidence I have is simply reading the article I don't have an definite proof, but it does seem to be fairly biased. Vallee01 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: who are you accusing of having a conflict of interest?  Which passages seem problematic to you? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   There are multiple things which seem very biased when reading it, as an example the quote: "Payne revealed, "I know that my immediate family tell me that when I was very young I saw a play that my brother was in – probably a Peter Pan pantomime because it involved a crocodile – and I apparently shouted out 'That crocodile is going to eat my brother' and ran up on the stage. I don't remember that myself, but if it really happened, I think it shows that from an early age I loved that suspension of disbelief". This seems biased and an unnecessary inclusion to me, to me this quote does not need to be in the article and is simply fluff to make Bruce Payne relatable and put him in a positive light, you could argue that the section is necessary because it shows that Bruce Payne was interested in acting at a young age. However its not a necessary inclusion. The same idea can be given with far less bias and also far less words with simply: "Payne developed an interest for acting at an early age. In an interview with Impact magazine in 2001, Payne claimed that a crocodile from the play Peter Pan shouted that it would eat his brother and then proceeded to run up stage." In other words the same idea is expressed with less bias as well as less fluff, the issue with quotes is that when using quotes you are putting up a soapbox for people to express there ideas and Wikipedia is a neutral space. The Article is also almost written like a portfolio, it does document the life of Bruce Payne so much as it states Bruce Payne's accomplishments. If we take Ghandi as an example the article doesn't simply list off his achievements like a Portfolio it deals far more with his Personal Life and with his ideologies and other aspects of his life. In the current form the article it seems almost like an ad for Bruce Payne. Another issue is the sources, much of the sources have direct influence for Bruce Payne, by using so many Primary Sources much of the article becomes warped and therefor is unable to have a NPOV, there also certain sources that are completely biased in favor of Bruce Payne describing him as "Awesome" and "Fantastic". There are multiple other issues I see with the article but these where the primary ones. Vallee01 (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I remember correctly, the article originally cited a bunch of fansites before I cleaned up the article a bit.  It looks like I left in some less-than-neutral prose and poor sources, but I see no evidence here that there's been any COI editing.  A long quotation, for example, is not evidence of COI or non-neutral editing – just poor skill at writing encyclopedia articles.  I can try to clean up this article again, but you can also do it yourself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of view.