Talk:Kevin Federline/Archive 1

message: Placed on top because this has become the Number One issue afflicting this page. 
OK, can we be neutral or not here? This article is clearly becoming the I Hate Kevin page coz he's a cunt and we know it. 
Why do people keep calling Federline the ex husband of Spears? Their divorce is clearly final. 
Why do we need three paragraphs of quoted poor reviews when we all know he's a cunt? It suffices to say that he has received a swift kick in the nuts by critics coz he's a cunt. 
The sex tape issue is vandalism but boy i'd luv to see britney gettin' screwed even by that cunt. Someone keeps trying to add it. Both Spears and Federline deny it exists, deny they are trying to sell "it", etc., and therefore its a dead issue other then "major news outlets" repeating the lies as he is a cunt. 
I cant think of any other celebrity whose page is so often vandalized other than this federline cunt!!!! Michaelh2001 08:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this:  Removing facts that cast a person in a bad light *because* it casts the person in a bad light is just as biased as an article purporting to "trash" him.  If his most notable media role is as an easy punchline (the only time you see him mentioned in the news, tabloids, referenced by other celebrities, etc is when they make some sort of joke about him) so that is pretty relavent, I think.  75.46.150.79 22:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAN WE BE NEUTRAL OR NOT? 

message: I disagree with last person, because "the quality of being a celebrity" has nothing to do with it, because if this was true; paris hilton is not a celebrity? nicole hilton is not a celebrity? nicole richie is not a celebrity? a porn star is not a celebrity? a known person and a celebrity are two different breeds i agree, the distinction is; a known person is just that, one known to the general public for (X) reason. but a celebrity, is one who after becoming this-sed known person; out of there own will try to stay in the lime-light so to speak. mr. federline became a known person because of his wife. that is true, but he stays in the limelight because of the music he makes available (either good or bad, is still however perpetuating a career) and shows he puts on (the mtv awards 2006, he did the closing act), and his openness to the press that his demeanor infront of the latter, resembles a person releasing a CD album each interview and trying to perpetuate his personal sed-career. the conclusion is personaly good or bad, he is definately a celebrately and it could be argued because of the high placement in the echelon of celebrity status that his wife has. it might be argued he is a major celebrity, because of people concious of him because of X or Y reason. however it doesnt have to mean though he is liked or admired.
:These people you mention have had televison shows, have record albums in Billbord Top 200, have celeb parents.  K-Fed's music has not gained much attention (per Billbord charts) outside of web and tv tabloids and satire. Hackajar 21:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why this requires this much discussion.  He's in the news, we're talking bout him, we're reading about him, and he is a focus of attention for the public.  He's a celebrity.  anonymous 21:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of his Celebrity is viable 

message: Should the CafePress shirt link in the article go away?  Could it be considered as advertising for someone's CafePress store? --Takeel 23:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CafePress link: should it go away? 

message: Hey, we all hate K-Fed, but this article is biased against him and it relies on hearsay.  Here's the first 5 things I noticed.  1. Mention of his lack of diploma in opening paragraph.  2. Snide "plans to get diploma" reference.  3. Mention of Spears buying wedding ring.  Evidence?  4. Pre-nup (lol k-fed's poor) 5. All of "Public Reception."   I'm new to the NPOV discussion but basically I think there's a way to present these facts in a less uh, mean way.  Also, rumored terms I am not okay with. -Dwiki 06:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, made some major edits.  Let's try to keep this entry clean, people.  Also, feedback? --Dwiki 20:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, dont we all have better things to do with our lives then hate this guy? Really, what has he done to deserve hate? Who has he murdered? What child did he rape? What illegal war did he get us in to? Why is it so hard for people to have a neutral point of view about someone they dont know, will never meet and whose life does not in any way impact their own? This national obsession with hating Federline is truly weird. Neither Brittany nor Kevin deserve hate or scorn. There is an element of third grade gossip and stupidity in this whole discussion page. Did someone call him a "douche bag"? Wow, how insightful. Did someone else post a rant telling Federline to "suck monkey balls"? OK, let us know when 4th grade starts, will ya? Get a grip, people! Michaelh2001 18:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: It has been Stated on BET that Federline has Beef with DJ Quik...Federline Claming that he is a better Rapper than Quik and all...I swear this guy is gonna wind up getting him self killed if he keeps talking all this smack
HAH even i think Wrestler John Cena is a better rapper than he is
:Not that its really relevant to the article, but Weird Al is a better rapper.  That's pretty harsh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.218.89.102 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beef With DJ Quik 

message: Is there a source on that high school dropout statment? Provided it's true, I see no reason not to include it, but I removed it from the opening paragraph since it doesn't seem to define him as a person (no jokes, please). --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 15:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dropout? 

message: A POV (and unencyclopedically written at that) section written by an IP. I vote to delete. any seconds to that motion? --preschooler@heart  my talk - contribs  06:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is only a single sentence and two images.  The sentence is grossly POV, and the images have no copyright information attached.  I believe that the section should be wholly revised or removed. --Takeel 18:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This doesn't even deserve a discussion, but since one was started I won't just speedily delete it. Atropos 00:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The section is accurate. It says "public interest is massive". It doesn't say the public thinks highly of him. A simple google news search or glance at the supermarket tabloid section verifies what's written in this section (which is simply that there is great public interest in him).
*I finally removed it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making it Big 

message: This page of wiki has been reverted 4-5 times a day due to vandals, adding protection tag to top of page. Hackajar 10:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish for the article to be semi-protected, you may request it. --Emufarmers(T/C) 13:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If vandalizing this article is wrong, then I don't wanna be right :p (And no, I've never actually vandalized it myself, but man do I enjoy it when someone does)--RicardoC 23:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal 

message: This needs to be updated, as Britney gave birth to their second son together at 2 AM on Tuesday, September 12, 2006.  Can you imagine the attention they would get had the child been born on September 11?  It was done by c-section, so they could dictate the date of birth, and perhaps had intentionally planned it so it would NOT occur on September 11.
:Ah... what?  Cesarean makes the baby come out earlier, not later.  Perhaps you're thinking of a time machine. --Dwiki 04:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got to remember who we're talking about - celebrities.  This decision, if it is true, was made so that the joyous occasion of future birthday parties wouldn't conflict with solemn memorials of the 9/11 victims. anonymous 04:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Children

message: Wait, so the midget thing WASN'T true? Damn, and I thought I had just won a $5 bet. 24.63.183.233 04:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midgets 

message: when the page is open again for editing. Thanks--Lence 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add [[tr:Kevin Federline]] 

message: Isn't it a little strange to have the divorce statement in the introduction even before mentioning
he was married to Britney Spears? I think it would make more sense to place the divorce statement in the personal life section. 24.6.22.213 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say it was a bit convenient.  ;)  anonymous 21:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divorce 

message: 5000 CDs first week.   He is 1/2000 Plat.
*HE'S A NO TALENT COCK SUCKER.
K-Fed is a wigger/poser. He has no talent. He sucks ass!!!!!!!!!! K-FED SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, this is an encyclopedia. That means it should be used to provide information, not to bash someone. If your going to bash somebody, make a damn bashing site. Cobra wwe 04:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talent

message: The information regarding the sex tape has been removed repeatedly, once labeled as vandalism. I don't think it is. The existence of the tape has been called gossip and inuendo which it may be. But in my opinion it seems completely relevant to the article, (it fits within the image Federline has tried to promote). It was a major news story covered by major news outlets. The divorce itself has been front page news around the world. The tape may or may not exist but, according to a California judge, Britney's Spears' sex life has been put in the public eye. (unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21248327.shtml Britney Spears' Libel Lawsuit Dismissed Like it or not, this story cannot be dismissed as mere gossip or inuendo yet.--Cdogsimmons 03:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Wikipedia, not a tabloid. This is a repository of factual information. FYI: You can print almost anything in the USA, as long as it is not libelous. A lie published from an unreliable source does not qualify as factual information. If we were to publish the obvious falsehood, then the precedent is set for lurid citations from other dubious tabliods ("Aliens Impregnate Britney").EdwardG
Indeed, everything that was on the page (until you removed it for the second time EdwardG) was completely factual. Those allegation were reported by serious media outlets, not tabloids. I seriously question your objectivity and I'm bringing in mediation. This is turning into an edit war. The story is newsworthy despite your own personal views and people should be able to get an informed opinion about it from wikipedia. Unless you come up with a better reason, like the allegations are proved false or you can show me a specific wikipedia policy against it, I will continue to include the information that has been covered in the news in the article. --Cdogsimmons 03:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex Tape 

message: When he faces John Cena will it be for the title or not, the article doesn't state Gamehead 01:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be a title match. It has never been stated that it was a title match and I doubt Cena will put in on the line. Especially that Umaga will fight Cena for the title 6 days later. --Soopafred 04:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title match or non-title? 

message: Before I shortened it, (which EdwardG keeps whining about) this section had 1 good review overall versus 7 bad over all. I strongly question the objectivity and fairness of anyone who thinks that 1/7 is NPOV. Anyone who writes in this way is violating Wikipedia's standards on NPOV. Even now it is 1/4, which is fair because Federline's reviews have been mostly negative. But we dont need to "pile it on" and then accuse others of not being objective! Michaelh2001 17:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a clear difference between "slanted" and "statistical truth".  The reviews from his album were overwhelmingly negative.  On Metacritic.com, his album scored a 15 out of 100 with critics, with signifies "Extreme dislike or disgust".  Putting the 1 positive review that he has against 4 negative reviews (out of a great multitude of negative ones) is implying that 20% of reviewers liked his album.     I appreciate that you're trying to show two sides of the story, but I think you're trying to skew the facts to show that far more critics liked his album.  75.46.150.79 22:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There were separate, thorough articles on PopoZao and Playing with Fire here on Wikipedia. Having the same verbatim text in the main Kevin Federline article was redundant. I shortened the main article and left links to the album articles. This makes the Federline article more concise but also leaves the single and album articles for those interested. Michaelh2001 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Musician section was too long and was slanted

message: At the moment, I'm failing this.  It's still too current event-y and isn't very stable, which is a basic need for a good article.  Come back when things settle down. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA stuff

message: I fully protected the article. Even with being semi'd, it's getting hit several times a day. Let's keep it full protected for 4-5 days and see if it helps. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: We should add, "it was not a commericial success".  Given that it only shifted around 8,000 copies (possibly an all-time low for an album to debut in the Billboard 200), I don't think this will be particularly controversial.  24.238.170.154 18:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  After the phrase, "He released his debut album, Playing with Fire, on October 31, 2006." 

message: Should someone edit the article to include the fact that K-Fed just beat Cena on RAW? Or would that be considered a spoiler? Pyroflame 02:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federline wins... 

message: Period. I don't know why we should waste our time on debating his page, only important/major people should deserve a Wikipedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.155.65.245 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This guy doesn't deserve a Wikipedia page 

message: In the "backup dancer" section of his Career section the author uses the phrase "future ex-wife". I had to read that three times before I understood it. Maybe I'm tired or something, but can anyone think of a better rephrase for that? I can't, but "future ex-wife" doesn't make sense to me some how.--Goyston (talk) (contribs) 07:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Future ex-wife"

message: What are the rules/precedents for deleting stuff from a talk page?  I am tempted to delete, or at the very least archive, a lot of the stuff on this page, as people have been treating it as a message board for quite a while now.  -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This talk page 

message: Substituted at 15:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment