Talk:Randy Quaid

message: Do we have any citations for the Quaid game?  It seems dubiously notable.  Even if it is notable, I'd suggest it be moved to its own article, with only a brief reference here.  john k 16:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a commonly played game, maybe you should try it someday.  I felt that detailing the game's rules provided one with a poignant reflection of how the star persona of Randy Quaid is received in the contemporary cinematic landscape. Bigbigtom367 23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above.  I take specific issue with the claim that Quaid's performance was "unremarkable", as his character in the film expresses an initial attitude that the protagonists are defined against.  Without the presence of Randy Quaid - in his element portraying a redneck - one could be led to believe that the homosexual behaviour was acceptable to the represented society, which is obviously false as the intolerance provides the film with its conclusion.  For me, he was at times the film's highlight.  Perhaps one should edit the article to simply reflect the facts rather than portraying Randy as some sort of money-grabber (which is clearly false, aside from anything else). Bigbigtom367 23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've referenced and used quotations from an Entertainment News article, and changed the article to read in a hopefully more objective fashion. Bigbigtom367 23:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Seeing as no-one has replied, I will remove this sentence for the following reasons: 
a) "even though his perfomance was unremarkable (three other actors were nominated for Academy Awards, while Quaid was not)" - this is insufficient evidence for this claim, there is not an Academy Award that would suit Quaid's minor role and for the reasons outlined above his character is crucial to the film's plotting.
b) "and despite the fact that virtually no one in America even knew he was in the film until after they went to see it." - this is empirically unverifiable without waiting outside a cinema asking everybody if they knew Quaid was in the film.  provide this evidence and it can go into the article.   Bigbigtom367 21:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quaid game

message: Recently, a series of single-purpose accounts has been adding the same largely unsourced, POV material written in a non-encyclopaedic manner.  For reference, sites which mirror Wikipedia content cannot be used as a reference; hyperbole must be avoided without an explicit reference (citing a bunch of quotes is not enough), POV ramblings about why it's OK to not be a member of a union are not suitable; neither are arbitrary Shakespeare quotations.  Oli Filth(talk) 07:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Filling an article with cherry-picked positive reviews and synthesising an explanation for the union stuff does not constitute encyclopaedic material.  Oli Filth(talk) 01:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New additions 

message: Shouldn't his role in Midnight Express be given some mention in the article?  It was a pretty powerful performance in a powerful movie which left an impression on me.  Just a thought.--76.31.242.174 (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midnight Express 

message: More bad news on Quaid; not sure if it rises to the level of importance to belong in an encyclopedia article (someone else can decide that), but widely reported. See Prosecutor to Quaid: surrender in hotel bill case, Houston Chronicle, 2009-09-30. - Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More bad news 

message: 77.97.86.184 deleted material about Quaids arrest and about the private investigator he and his wife hired.
The information concerning the private investigator, and the alleged mental instability of his wife should probably be deleted without the addition of good citations.
I don't see any reason for the deletion of the information about Quaid's arrest.
--Davefoc (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  77.97.86.184 deletion of information about Quaid's arrest 

message: Someone has added these references in regards to the charges against Quaid. These are presumably references to California law, but don't mean much to the many of us who are not in California.  Please expand this format where it first appears. Eclecticology (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  459PC etc. 

message: Amercian Bar Association Law Journal News Brief on Quaid The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for latest Stunt  

message: 174.116.132.81 has made several recent edits. Some of the edits caused large sections of the article to be deleted. Some of the other edits seem to have been done as a kind of joke. Regardless the edits are being done without explanation and with the apparent purpose of harming the article and I and others have undone them.
However, I am concerned that 174.116.132.81 may have legitimate concerns about the article and because of his actions his concerns are not being addressed. If this is so, I hope that 174.116.132.81 would consider posting his concerns about the article in the talk section. --Davefoc (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  174.116.132.81's recent edits 

message: 174.117.82.41 made two edits to this article.
1. Change of first sentence
Was:
:Randall Rudy "Randy" Quaid (born October 1, 1950) is an American actor perhaps best known for his role as Cousin Eddie in the National Lampoon's Vacation movies, as well as his numerous supporting roles in films, including his Oscar nominated performance in The Last Detail, Independence Day, Kingpin and Brokeback Mountain. 
Is:
:"Randy" Quaid (born October 1, 1950) is an American actor who does not like his role as Cousin Eddie in the National Lampoon's Vacation movies, as well as his numerous supporting roles in films, including his Oscar nominated performance in The Last Detail, Independence Day, Kingpin and Brokeback Mountain
Part of this edit seems correct. Randy Quaid's full given name is Randall Rudy Quaid and "Randy" is a nickname and a stage name I believe. As such 174.117.82.41's edit of this seems correct.
174.117.82.41 also added a comment about Quaid's personal view of the cousin Eddy role. Even if 174.117.82.41 were Randy Quaid this edit is problematic because a source was not provided and while the information is interesting it probably is of insufficient importance to justify its placement in the lede. I believe it should be removed.
2. Removal of the text which links to an image of Randy Quaid to "File:Copyright Evi Quaid.jpg"
The copyright status of the image in this article has been questioned before. It is listed as in the public domain in Wikimedia, however the image was uploaded by Boston24 and the provenance and other details about the image are not provided. I think it is possible that the image is not actually in the public domain. I am going to leave 174.117.82.41's edit with regard to this in place for the time being. If 174.117.82.41 has information that the copyright to this image is held by Evi Quaid, the best place to contest the copyright status of the image is on Wikimedia. As it stands now the image is widely used because it is located in Wikimedia and contesting the copyright of the image here would only effect its use in this article. Perhaps somebody could post some guidance here on how to contest the copyright status of an image on Wikimedia. --Davefoc (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  174.117.82.41's March 24, 2012 edits 

message: Three IPs from this range have been temporarily blocked--looks like we're dealing with the same business that was discussed above, earlier this year. Perhaps indefinite protection is in order.... 99.156.68.118 (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing disruption from 174 IPs 

message: Edit name to Randy Randall Rudy Quaid. Picture of birth certificate from Evi Quaid's twitter as proof.
https://twitter.com/EviQuaid/status/565192244597366785
Micklamode (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: We can't use a Twitter post about someone else as a source.  See WP:TWITTER  RudolfRed (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2015 

message: Please change 'Randall Rudy "Randy" Quaid (born October 1, 1950)' to 'Randy Randall Rudy Quaid (born October 1, 1950)' per Evi Quaid https://twitter.com/EviQuaid/status/565192244597366785/photo/1 
Videoeraser (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: We can't use a Twitter post about someone else as a source.  See WP:TWITTER  RudolfRed (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2015 

message: Before anyone else posts this twitter pic it should be noted that actual "Birth Certificates" are not usually signed by the governor of the state that a person is born in (doctor and hospital information is far more the norm)  and even if they were Rick Perry was not the governor of Texas in 1950. IMO this is a mock certificate and cannot be considered a WP:RS for any changes to this article. MarnetteD|Talk 21:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That logic sounds sensible but is mistaken. It's a special "Heirloom" birth certificate designed to look pretty, show pride in your state and to be used as a keepsake . It's not your original certificate but is instead one that you have to order, and as such it has to be signed by someone. They obviously can't get your original delivering doctor to sign it (he's probably dead by now) so it's usually the Governor and state registrar that sign it. Here is an example of the state of Washington version where they say "It is signed by the Governor and the State Registrar"  and the Colorado version where they say it may be signed by the Governor (PDF)  and also says that it has the same status as evidence as an original birth certificate (not true for all states I don't think), and the Ohio version which has recent Governor Ted Strikland's signature on it (PDF). I'm not saying it should be included, just pointing out that reasoning that says it's fake because it has the current Governor's signature on it is untrue. Suchmaterial (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Mock or heirloom. In either case it is not an official birth certificate and it cannot be used to determine Quaid's full name. MarnetteD|Talk 05:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  While it can't be used on Wikipedia because it's a photo on Twitter, it's a legal certified copy of a birth certificate. To quote from the Texas state website and the legislation I linked above "To celebrate this heritage, the Texas Legislature authorized the creation of an "heirloom" birth certificate, a legal birth certificate celebrating the unique heritage of being a native Texan" and "An heirloom birth certificate must contain the same information as,  and have the same effect of, a certified copy of another birth record". Suchmaterial (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The info on the pic in the tweet

message: First of all the Gazette Review citation is to an apparent clickbait/fake news site.
Here are sources supporting "Randall Rudy Quaid" (without the Randy) as his given name:
* Biography.com
* LA Times
* Infoplease 
Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: - what would you say regarding my comment? I heard from  that Quaid/his people "insist" on the "Randy Randall" form, but your comment indicates otherwise. Arbor to SJ (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  See this YouTube video made for Wikipedia and also :ticket:2015042110003976. There are sources which seem to be from the subject of this article that this person's stage name is "Randy Quaid", so per WP:Commonname, that should be the title of this article. This person's birth name is said to be "Randy Randall Rudy Quaid". I forget what the issue was here, but sometimes Wikipedia includes birthnames but often not. Usually Wikipedia reflects the name by which a person is known in the media, but per MOS:Identity, sometimes Wikipedia presents both the common name and the name which a person requests that they be called. If a person is known by multiple name in reliable sources then Wikipedia might mention all of those. What is the matter to be decided at this point?  Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The matter is if "Randy" is to be listed as his birth name as opposed to a nickname, like "Randall 'Randy' Quaid". Arbor to SJ (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I seen lots of tickets at OTRS (and answered some of them). In a nutshell (from the last ticket:2017032810012844) - the subject shows that his full name is . The version he does not like - and always generates an e-mail is . He claims it is not a nickname. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Resuming discussion

message: I was reading about the whole "Star Whackers" incident, and I noticed that this article mentions how Quaid was arrested in 2011 for burglary charge. This linkhttp://www.countyofsb.org/da/msm_county/documents/DAPressReleaseQuaidExtradition71511.pdf, however, failed to mention anywhere about burglary. I just wanted to bring this to attention. Thanks. New User Person (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Randy Quaid. 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/20150528013042/https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:V84Z-7QY to https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:V84Z-7QY
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 07:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have currently been notified by Randy Quaid, he has a Texas Birth Certificate with the name Randy Randall Rudy Quaid and that subsequent name changes by 'WayBack Machine' and Ancestry.com are incorrect. I refer this Youtube statutory declaration by Mr Randy Quaid >> youtu.be/9TWUjmtbpcI << for you consideration. 
Please change X Randall Rudy Quaid for Y Randy Randall Rudy Quaid  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grog 5mith (talk • contribs) 10:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: There is active discussion regarding this issue 3 sections up. Wait for consensus to be determined.  Cannolis (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015 

message: , why do you keep adding the paragraph on Jack Nicholson's role in The Last Detail? This seems irrelevant to an article about Randy Quiad.--kelapstick(bainuu)  21:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it kept being deleted by vandals without any discussion or justification, so I was undoing it to stop that. If we want to start a formal conversation about whether or not it should be in the article, that's fine!Fireflyfanboy (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call that removal vandalism, but I do think it's irrelevant to the article, after all the article is about Quaid, not the film, and not Nicholson. No comment on the full name in the lead. --kelapstick(bainuu)  21:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film section 

message: Hey everyone, I've noticed a lot of edits from anonymous IP editors, and the edits don't seem all that constructive. That's why I've requested protected status, which was granted by User:Widr earlier today. 
Starting March 3 until today, April 21, the vast majority of edits seems to have been by anonymous editors. While there are some edits that could be perceived as constructive (including the issue of whether to talk about his role in The Last Detail), a lot of them seem like vandalism in nature, and do not go through the proper process for making these edits. Of particular concern are strange edits of syntax and grammar (removing formatting, deliberate misspelling, etc.), and the constant disruption and rewriting of the intro paragraph. Beyond that, a lot of these edits are big ones, and there is no justification for them given by the editors on the article's history, nor here on the talk page. 
So, my reason for opening this up for discussion is two-fold: 
1) Would someone want to go through the edits made since March 3, to account for what has been done to the article, and make sure no major changes have been made that have yet to be corrected?
and 2) do we want to make the article's semi-protected status permanent, due to the disruptive nature of these anonymous editors?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot to add my stand: as someone who has dealt with these anonymous editors, whoever they are, and their disruption to this article, I think permanent protected status might be necessary, but I think we should only act if there is consensus.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent disruptive edits from anonymous editors, and semi-protected status- April 2016

message: I stuck it into the personal section because that section talks about him in recent times. However, recent times involved legal issues and that image is a teeny bit mug shotish. Pls revert if you wish. That might be best. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I definitely see your concern.  This is one way to make use of the image, but I tend to agree that, given the aesthetics of that image, sticking it next to the personal life and legal issues section does kind of give the impression that usage is suggestive.  There's also a question of whether it is an appropriate place for the image, given most of the salient details covered in those two sections cover events from 1980-1989 and then 2006-2010, respectively.  I'm goign to leave it in as well, pending further commentary, but I think we may want to remove it, just to err on the side of NPOV. Snow let's rap 20:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Snow Rise. Removed. From this point on, consensus for inclusion into that section would probably be the best plan. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quaid in 2017 image usage 

message: Even people meeting the extended confirmed criteria have been changing the name despite instructions not to. Enigmamsg 02:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended confirmed still necessary 

message: Beneath the heading "Legal issues" is written "Quasiedly." What is this supposed to mean? 100.38.10.46 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: . Someone edited the Legal issues section and mistakenly deleted portions of two paragraphs. I have restored them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2019 

message: In the section Personal Life, change family to family"
i.e. add the closing of the quote marks (= solely a correction of punctuation). Trainspotting Mike (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2019 

message: remove 'known for his roles in both serious drama and light comedy'. It reads like publicity material. Devgirl (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The statement is supported by sources in the body, but it could be improved. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2020 

message: "change voter fraud to electoral fraud" Dilljl248 (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2021 

message: This is pretty simple in your description of Randy Quaid‘s physical views you stated that he was very outspoken and his claims about election fraud without any evidence. I’m getting so sick and tired of hearing that. Because usually when people hear that they never want to see the truth! There is all kinds of evidence of foreign interference as well as Democrat and Republican interference.But if you don’t go look for it of course you won’t find it. And you don’t have to look very hard. There is documented evidence from our military. But no problem because all this is coming out in the weeks and months to come and then what will be your excuse?
* If there is "all kinds of evidence of foreign interference" and "documented evidence from our military" as you claim, then it's odd that in 60+ court cases, Trump's army of lawyers couldn't provide or present a single shred of that evidence. You should look up something called the Sunk_cost_fallacy. At some point in the future, you may have to actually acknowledge reality. Just saying.
If anyone has a link to any video of any evidentiary hearing of any election fraud trial following the 2020 election, please share. Evidence is presented at an evidentiary hearing. Cases dismissed for lack of standing or other grounds without an evidentiary hearing never afforded an opportunity to present evidence. It does however provide Marxist propagandists an opportunity to manipulate the weak minded with phrases like “claims without evidence” or “unproven claims.” When you see phrases like these, you are reading propaganda.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1DC1:7120:6551:DB6:BEA0:BD08 (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2020 Election Fraud 

message: Currently this page says "He was among the Trump supporters who asserted without evidence that the outcome of the 2020 United States presidential election was the result of widespread election fraud."
There's no source for that sentence. There are two sources further down that seem focused on other claims, like that Trump retweeted Quaid's Tweet.
1. What did Quaid actually say, and where is the text?
2. Is the "without evidence" claim true? It's an oddly biased thing to say about people's normal communications, since they don't usually furnish evidence for everything as though they live in a courtroom. But I'm concerned that he actually did refer to evidence, since there's no source for this claim.
3. It's remarkably biased to smuggle in the much broader claim that he was "among the Trump supporters who asserted without evidence..." That's just a swipe at unnamed Trump supporters, and an unsubstantiated claim about their claims. It's completely unnecessary and biased. Wikipedia shouldn't be a platform for political partisans to embed their ideologies and narratives. BlueSingularity (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be right, in that he may well have said "there was widespread election fraud" and the "without evidence" is a kind of wp:synthesis. Would "falsely" be better [].Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for political swipes 

message: Personally, I think this section:
"After 2016, Quaid became an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump. He was among the Trump supporters who asserted without evidence that the outcome of the 2020 United States presidential election was the result of widespread election fraud. Three weeks after the election, Trump used his Twitter account to thank Quaid for making these claims and highlighted another post by Quaid which urged fans to boycott Fox News in favor of One America News Network and Newsmax."
seems a little biased and harsh. I would change the wording to:
"After 2016, Quaid became a supporter of Donald Trump and believed the 2020 United States presidential election was the result of widespread election fraud. Three weeks after the election, Trump, on his Twitter account, thanked Quaid for agreeing with his claim and highlighted a post by him which requested fans to boycott Fox News in favor of One America News Network and Newsmax."
Scratchu90 (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2022 

message: Hello, as you can see right above I feel as though the "Political views" subsection has some wording that can be seen as biased.
This is the subsection's text from the article:
"After 2016, Quaid became an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump. He was among the Trump supporters who asserted without evidence that the outcome of the 2020 United States presidential election was the result of widespread election fraud. Three weeks after the election, Trump used his Twitter account to thank Quaid for making these claims and highlighted another post by Quaid which urged fans to boycott Fox News in favor of One America News Network and Newsmax."
How I would reword it:
"After 2016, Quaid became an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump and believed the 2020 United States presidential election was the result of widespread election fraud. Three weeks after the election, Trump, on his Twitter account, thanked Quaid for agreeing with his claim and highlighted a post by him which requested fans to boycott Fox News in favor of One America News Network and Newsmax."
Scratchu90 (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change wording of section 

message: Randy Quaid starred in movie 'Mail to the Chief' as the President in 2000. 65.89.208.4 (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Randy Quaid also starred in 'Mail to the Chief' 

message: FROM:
After 2016, Quaid became an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump and believed the outcome of the 2020 United States presidential election was the result of widespread election fraud. Three weeks after the election, Trump, on his Twitter account, thanked Quaid for agreeing with his claim
TO:
After 2016, Quaid became an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump and believed the outcome of the 2020 United States presidential election was the result of widespread election fraud, without any evidence. Three weeks after the election, Trump, on his Twitter account, thanked Quaid for agreeing with his unverified claim. 2A02:C7C:6511:B600:ED8B:20E7:171B:2FE2 (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: WP:NPOV, I'm sure this change is a POV-pushing. Lemonaka (talk) 11:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2022 

message: change "Randy" to "Quaid" in Personal Life regarding Canadian citizenship 
FROM:
Quaid's wife Evi was granted Canadian citizenship in 2011, based on her parentage, and Randy sought permanent resident status as the husband of a Canadian.[39] 
TO:
Quaid's wife Evi was granted Canadian citizenship in 2011, based on her parentage, and Quaid sought permanent resident status as the husband of a Canadian.[39] Nina Gulat (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: small jars tc 14:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2023 

message: Something like "Quaid's acting career faltered during the 2010s amid professional sanctions and a series of arrests." These events had a dramatic effect on Quaid's career and have shaped his current image. 98.248.84.55 (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already says "Quaid's legal troubles prevented him from working for almost a decade."  RudolfRed (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Shouldn't the lead say something about... you know

message: Randy Quaid's Filmography left out his movie called Evil In Clear River  released in 1988 69.158.246.4 (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found a source and added it, but next time, please include a reliable source to support your request. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  18:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2023 

message: Please note that this edit, although under the Political Views section, has no political purpose.  The original language -- "[Trump] thanked Quaid for agreeing with his false claims” -- was slightly unclear.  Perhaps, not to us today who would know what the writer meant, but to someone removed from these events (either by time or distance) this might seem to say Trump was admitting his own claims are false.  
As a remedy (and upgrade) I replaced that statement with the actual quote.  That clears up the dissonance within the statement, adds explicit information (ie. he didn't just thank, he retweeted), and hopefully would give an outsider a sense of the intensity of the rhetoric.
A simpler solution to most of the above issues would be simply to use brackets: “. . . agreeing with his [false] claims”.   But since the same paragraph cites both the “Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election” Wikipedia page and the “2020 United States presidential election” Wikipedia page and uses the language “disproven conspiracy theory”, adding leaving the redundant word “false” might seem like piling on, and therefore a signal of bias. Paugus (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Dissonant (two voices) statement 

message: Remove the red links in All You Can Eat (2018)! 2804:7F2:6A8:9B18:83F:841F:8442:E893 (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Jamedeus (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2024 

message: I'm surprised there is no discussion about Randy and his "starkiller" conspiracy that he was using to claim asylum in Canada.  It wasn't an off thing - i have heard interviews where he has declared this a number of times.  He claims this is when someone gains "too much power" that it threatens the Hollywood elite or something.  I have no idea - personally think it sounds like the rants of a raving lunatic but it sort of what was I came ot the page to read abut and didn't see a single word about it. 2600:6C56:6900:9BF:5171:C422:AFE2:3A12 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Starkillers" Conspiracy!