Talk:Daniel M. Kimmel
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Name change
edit"Daniel M. Kimmel is the name used professionally by the subject. I have set up redirects from Dan and Daniel Kimmel. --HelpRing 13:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
External links
editThere was a large collection of external links, most going to the same site -- I condensed those into one link to the review site. Also, there was a link to an unverfiable review on a personal webpage -- it was written much differently than his other reviews, so I'm not certain that it is an authentic review by Mr. Kimmel. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there a problem?
editI don't get this fighting over this page. I didn't even ask to have an entry here and was startled to find I had one. I corrected some errors (NOT opinions, just statements of facts that got names or dates wrong).
Now someone is deleting what newspaper I write for, what books I have written, a link to my reviews at Rotten Tomatoes (after someone else linked a whole bunch of reviews seemingly at random), as well as links to further information about me, and the award for my book.
This is all non-controversial. This is not about self-promotion but simply being correct, and providing links for further information. The summary of my book (NOT written by me) is straightforward and accurate and I've left it alone, even if it's not what I would have necessarily written.
If you're going to list me as a film critic, the paper I write for is pertinent, as is a single link to access reviews. If you're going to list me as an author, the bibliography provides important information.
- Yes, many Wikipedians consider this a problem.
- It's one thing if you are making factual corrections (e.g. incorrect dates) and you can provide a citation to back up your version of events. I don't think anyone but an NPOV zealot would object.
- It's another issue if you seek to address your concerns that people are omitting information you deem "important" and that they are including information "seemingly at random".
- If you cannot substantiate your edits with a neutral reference and/or are editing the article to appear as you think it should, see WP:Conflict_of_interest for an explanation of users' skepticism and/or hostility. Josephgrossberg 20:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I provided factual information, not opinion. As it stands today (6/3/07) it is fine. Lies and misinformation are not acceptable, and I don't care who thinks otherwise. For example, a link to my page at Rotten Tomatoes allows people to see whichever reviews they wish. Citing some reviews here and not others is, indeed, a "random" attempt to represent my work.