Talk:Abe Vigoda/Archive 1

Twice?
I remember hearing he had a second premature obituary published, someone wanna knock me down or back me up? I'm not sure if the second was as widely published (read: I think a local newspaper f'd up). --Jack (Cuervo) 10:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was Jennifer Valoppi, a former TV anchorwoman on WWOR Channel 9, in Secaucus, New Jersey who made that false report in 1987. She corrected herself the next day. DanTD 04:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

abe vigoda rokks harder than dokken
if he dies, could you dro'pkm]polmpm\ ,m\ p a line to hotkarlmarx@gmail.com? the firefox extension that was telling his status has apparently farked the fuck outta his official web site, so alternate channels of information must be sought. clearly, there's call for duplicity, or at least duplication, on this most crucial call-tree. -:)Ozzyslovechild 03:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew Alphabet
Whoever removed the line about the hebrew alphabet, saying the order of the letters is wrong: YOU are wrong. Cite a source for your contention. I put the line back in.

Conan O'Brien appearances
The article should mention Abe Vigoda's frequent appearances on Late Night with Conan O'Brien, most recently covered in Christmas tree lights.--172.152.213.85 11:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There was a fun one tonight that played into the death rumours. In a sketch about audience members with "super powers," one member's power was reanimating the dead through intense concentration.  Conan asked him to demonstrate, and he closed his eyes for a moment, whereupon Vigoda shuffled in.  ~ CZeke 06:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha-ha, I just added that to the article as a very brief example of his fun with fake death claims. Martin 06:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Conan O'Brien reflink insert is very confusing as a reader of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.224.18 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is incomprehensible

 * In May 2001, Greg Galcik created abevigoda.com (website), a single-page site displaying "Abe Vigoda's status" which reports whether Abe Vigoda is currently alive or dead. In 2002, Galcik recorded a gothic rock song Abe Vigoda's Dead, a parody of Bela Lugosi's Dead by Bauhaus.


 * The Abe Vigoda Status extension for the Mozilla Firefox web browser, released in late 2004, shows "Abe Vigoda's current status" in the status bar of the Firefox browser (at the time of this writing, it claims that Mr. Vigoda is "alive"). Originally, it retrieved Mr. Vigoda's status from abevigoda.com. On 14 February 2005, the extension was listed on Fark.com. Due to massive publicity generated by this listing, abevigoda.com was temporarily knocked out of commission, in a process that is often called "farking". For about 18 hours afterward, the current status said "farked" instead of "alive". The extension was later changed to retrieve Mr. Vigoda's status from the extension author's website, instead of from abevigoda.com.

If I had any real idea what it meant, I'd fix it. But I don't (and I thought I understood the English language fairly well). JackofOz 04:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had no response, so I've removed this. Please translate it into English before reverting me.  JackofOz 06:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * : Maybe you just aren't web literate. You removed the exact explanation I was looking for, and I had no troubble comprehending it.  Try figuring out why there is an Abe Vigoda Status Firefox extension  https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/451/  and what it does with out the removed text.  I will re-add with links for clairification. (virtualx)


 * I make no claims to web-literacy, but I can usually work things out. Wikipedia articles are written with general readers in mind.  This is an article about an actor.  Those interested in reading about people in the theatrical/acting profession cannot be assumed to have any particular knowledge of IT/internet technicalities.  Try figuring out why there is an Abe Vigoda Status Firefox extension - no, how about you tell me what a "status firefox extension" is?  Expecting readers to do a lot of research in order to understand what the f... you're on about is expecting too much.  People will read this and wonder what drugs the people who write Wikipedia are on.  Can you tell me in 2 short sentences just exactly what this whole block of text is trying to say? I mean in plain, ordinary, everyday, layperson's English?  Assume I'm your granddad and go from there.  No, how about this:  I'll tell you what I think it means, and you tell me how close I am.  Here goes:
 * In 2004, some websites erroneously reported that Abe Vigoda had died. That's the essence of it, isn't it?  What more needs to be said?   JackofOz 10:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm an internet layperson and it was clear to me, that Abe Vigoda took the mistaken magazine news article (about his death) in stride and as a result of that running joke, many third party websites participated in the joke of "is this minor celebrity alive or dead?" and made that information available as a daily reminder in order to take part in this sick, albeit good-spirited, joke. I don't know why you're so bitter that you simply don't get the joke. JesseRafe 00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The creation of a website to track his living status, as a direct result of the ongoing joke mentioned in the article, seems to have some relevance, if not a detailed explanation of how it works or how it got farked. I'm putting a short reference to it back in. Esprix (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and I've removed it yet again. This terrible website has no place in this article and will not remain. It is not notable at all: just stupid. Doc   talk  23:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I take issue with your edit and cite the disagreement over whether it should be included or not. Is there someone of a higher authority that can make a definitive call about whether or not to include it? Esprix (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not about authority but rather about consensus, which you would need to gain to include it. I should point out that it is a link to be avoided per point #1 of WP:ELNO. It also uses a copyrighted photograph of Abe Vigoda that was pretty much unquestionably used without the permission of the copyright holder. In other words, it's an amateurish and useless website. If you want you can put a template bio on this talk page to get the attention of uninvolved editors. Doc   talk  21:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

trivia link?
Someone removed my link to the band "Abe Vigoda" without comment. By what policy would this be considered irrelevant? COOL! Kellen T 18:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Abe Vigoda Firefox extension missing?
What happened to the Abe Vigoda Firefox extension? The link to it does not appear to work, and neither abevigoda.com nor vesterman.com provide a link anymore. I cannot seem to find it anywhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.69.123 (talk • contribs).
 * I have my old XPI (installer), but it doesn't work with Firefox 1.5. (There's a way around this, but I'm not motivated to bother.) I suspect it doesn't work anymore. --Dhartung | Talk 11:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Abe as Death
In the HR Block Superbowl commercial Abe Vigoda was Death. Not big enough to go in unless there is some tie to the Abe Vigoda is dead stuff. --BenWoodruff 22:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Who Cares That He..Etc., Etc.
Is mentioned in a Beastie Boy's song? Or some nobody's song about pagodas? I can't believe this was a stand-alone sentence on Wikipedia (about a one-time television appearance): "It drew a lot of laughs." So what? Not every laugh on TV deserves mention on Wikipedia, nor do I think his one-time, unpaid guest appearances on other TV shows count as "Career" milestones that need to be noted. The cult segment of America concerned with Abe Vigoda can go visit his fan site, SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN WIKIPEDIA.173.21.123.155 (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Other Vigodas
When I entered "Vigoda" in the Wikipedia search box, I was redirected here. That's not what I expected. If I entered "Smith", would I be redirected to any particular Smith? I don't think so. Unfree (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's because "Smith" doesn't have an obvious single target to redirect to. Where else would you expect to land when typing "Vigoda"? If there are other possibilities, perhaps a template is in order, like for or redirect. Frank  |  talk  22:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Big rewrite
In this edit I removed some borderline trivia and put all the life or death status stuff in one section. I increased the mention of that aspect in the intro. I found excellent references mentioning the www.abevigoda.com website and the Firefox extension, so I incorporated that information. The 2010 Superbowl commercial was a top scorer, so I mentioned that more prominently. Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you figure that this is an "excellent reference"? Cause... it's not. Doc   talk  23:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That perfectly reliable and verifiable primary source is being used properly, in appreciation of the guideline at WP:PRIMARY, to support a very simple fact: that the website was established in May 2001. Of the various references in the article, this is the only one giving the starting date, which I thought was relevant. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Only one of the other sources directly mentions that particular website, the other two just say that a website was created with the sole purpose of reporting his status. Also, we're not supposed to use primary sources in this way - articles are supposed to be written with reliable secondary sources. I think the use of this "source" is incorrect. Doc   talk  00:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The one reference giving the URL is enough to establish it; we don't need two or three or four.
 * Give WP:PRIMARY a quick read, please. Secondary sources are required to establish notability for a topic, while primary sources can be used, carefully, to flesh out details with simple facts, as I have done with this one very straightforward primary source. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To use two sources that do not support this abevigoda.com as being the same as the one specified in the other two sources is WP:Original Research. You're right that it doesn't need two or three or four citations. Especially ones that do not support the statement they are supposedly backing up. Doc   talk  00:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see on the page history and talk page that you have been fighting for a long time to keep the abevigoda.com URL off the page. You should be rewarded for keeping poor sources and conjecture out of the BLP. Now that a reliable secondary source names the URL, you can rest satisfied. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You won't want to reward me after I start culling those sources you added. I'll give you some time to realize how those four sources do not support the wording of the sentence you added before we venture over to WP:RSN for the "primary" reference. As I said, the other two sources that don't specifically mention the website do not support the date of creation of the website nor do they identify it. If this site is mentioned by name in the article or is linked to that site, this could get quite interesting indeed. Cheers :> Doc   talk  09:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to take this matter to RSN or any other noticeboard. The sourcing is perfectly good, adhering to WP:RS with all four and WP:PRIMARY with the DomainTools one.
 * You have not yet proposed an alternate wording, using the sources. I don't have any idea of how the article does not conform to your wishes, because I do not know your wishes. If you want to work with me, please offer a version you think is better. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When you use four sources to support a single sentence, you must be very careful to avoid what amounts to WP:SYNTH. Two of the sources do not identify any particular website, one does, and the fourth is very suspect (IMHO) for inclusion, as you know. The two sources that mention that "a" website about this didn't bother to mention it by name. That's interesting, and probably what we should do as well. I think we need to remove the date of creation (and the source), and use the two sources that support that "a" website was created. Nothing to identify the "possible/probable?" website the two sources mention should be tied to the website in question, as that would be original research. Doc   talk  04:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I added two more print sources naming the website itself:
 * I don't have URL for the second one so I brought out the relevant quote. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The two sources I'm referring two need to be removed. They are not needed now that you've added two others: and they do not support the sentence. No one can assume that they were talking about this website, and to tie them in as if they are is original research. The third source... I'll look into that. Doc   talk  04:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, to completely clarify: we cannot ever provide an external link to the website in question, for many reasons under WP:ELNO, but especially per Point #1 of WP:ELNEVER. This has mostly been what I've been protecting the article from - the addition of this website as an EL. As I've repeatedly pointed out, we cannot link to sites that contain copyright infringements, and this site is certainly one that does contain copyvios. This addition regarding the mention of this website is becoming "overkill", IMHO. Doc   talk  05:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest putting the link in as an "External link", nor do I intend to. For those who have been suggesting it in the past, to me it appears you are bolting the door after the horse is gone from the barn. The URL has been published by reliable sources. We can quote reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't misquote reliable sources however, or attribute them in a way that is incorrect. This source and this source do not directly support the sentence as it is. It seems that the "purpose" part was borrowed here, and an inference that they were mentioning this particular site was made. These two sources don't talk about a date of creation for any particular site: they don't even mention this website by name at all. WP is not here for advertising (or putting undue weight on) some site that, upon closer scrutiny, is far less notable than the now many citations would indicate. Doc   talk  05:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest putting the link in as an "External link", nor do I intend to. For those who have been suggesting it in the past, to me it appears you are bolting the door after the horse is gone from the barn. The URL has been published by reliable sources. We can quote reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't misquote reliable sources however, or attribute them in a way that is incorrect. This source and this source do not directly support the sentence as it is. It seems that the "purpose" part was borrowed here, and an inference that they were mentioning this particular site was made. These two sources don't talk about a date of creation for any particular site: they don't even mention this website by name at all. WP is not here for advertising (or putting undue weight on) some site that, upon closer scrutiny, is far less notable than the now many citations would indicate. Doc   talk  05:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Interpreting sources
In the article right now, there is this sentence:
 * "In May 2001, a website was mounted with only one purpose: to report whether Vigoda was alive."

Here are the six sources supplied to uphold the very simple sentence:
 * 1) "There's even a Web site devoted to his life-or-death status."
 * 2) "If you're one of those who think Vigoda has passed on, the best way to verify his status is to visit AbeVigoda.com. If all is right with Abe, his picture and the words 'Abe Vigoda is alive' greet you.'"
 * 3) "There's a Web site that has one purpose: to report the current status of the actor—dead or alive."
 * 4) WHOIS Record for AbeVigOda.com. (Under the "Registration" tab, it says the site was first mounted on May 7, 2001.)
 * 5) "His current state (dead or alive) is continuously updated on his Internet website, www.abevigoda.com."
 * 6) "Vigoda's non-death (he is now 88) is a pop culture meme to this day. Abevigoda.com, for example, does only one thing: indicate whether Abe is alive or dead." New York magazine, 2010.

I'm not a fan of having a lot of references where one or two will do. However, in light of past arguments to have nothing in the article about the abevigoda.com website, I put this many references in place. One possibility is to consolidate most of them into one footnote with several bulleted entries, the ones that are not named and used elsewhere. Another possibility is to trim the ones that are least necessary. An argument against trimming is that each source offers some slightly different viewpoint about Vigoda, and might be used for expansion of the article.

The problems that Doc9871 has with synthesis of these sources to create the single sentence is a problem I do not see. DomainTools says the site was May 2001. The others say there is one website dedicated to reporting Vigoda's status. The complaint reminds me of interaction #5 at User:MastCell's "The Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia". All I did was paraphrase the sources, not make a new conclusion taking A + B to come up with C. Binksternet (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Number 5 is interesting as well, and raises the question of a consensus of reliable sources and BLP. Just because something is published in a book somewhere doesn't mean it jives with reality. It's Abe Vigoda's website according to #5. That is not correct. I'll probably have to make the changes, and then we can discuss it. Doc   talk  08:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The mistake by source #5 is an understandable one, along the lines of someone accidentally misspelling a celebrity's name while reporting on their activities. We would not question whether the celebrity is at all identified if it is clear from context. Same here; the website is correctly identified by URL but incorrectly and understandably said to be Vigoda's own. In both cases, we allow leeway for the source's minor mistake while giving it credit for the factual parts.
 * In today's web laws, if you register a website with someone else's famous name, that someone can sue you for ownership. If Abe Vigoda sued, he could easily get the domain from its current owner. Because of that situation, it is easy to assume, for instance, that www.barbrastreisand.com belongs to Barbra Streisand. Usually, it does. Binksternet (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay here's the deal. I usually don't announce what I'm going to do before I do it, but in your case I'll make an exception. This sentence has WAY too many references - I'm gonna cut it from six references to two or three. Of course, the burden is on you for inclusion of material and not me. I've been attending this article for quite some time, and your rewrite is appreciated. However, as a FA contributor, you must be used to your work being altered by now. Cheers... Doc   talk  06:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If we allow references 1, 2 and 3 to fall away, they will stay in the article because they support other facts. I propose we keep 4, 5 and 6 as inline references to the website sentence. Binksternet (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You know I don't like Ref #4 - but I won't make a great big stink about it. Cutting the three refs like you suggested is a good compromise. You can do the honors or I will; it's up to you. Cheers... Doc   talk  07:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, we're down to three cites. Binksternet (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! Just one more thing... I don't think we need the addition of "A website was mounted and a Firefox extension was written solely to report on Vigoda's status." in the intro. It's mentioned in the article later, the gaffe is mentioned in the intro, and the omission of this sentence would be an improvement in terms of giving less undue weight to a crappy website and Firefox extension. We know who Vigoda is for his film and television career, and while the false death reports are notable for certain, the mentions of these things notable only because of their perceived "ingenuity" is redundant in the lede of this article. FWIW: I really wish Abe or his interested representatives would sue this website for the rights to the URL. Doc   talk  07:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Vigoda would immediately win that suit. Regarding the lead section, naturally we go by WP:LEAD which directs us to summarize the article. It's a just a matter of deciding what is most important in the body, and mentioning that in the lead. I'm not married to any particular wording. You will have noticed by now that I removed specific mention of the Late Night with Conan O'Brien show from the lead section and replaced it with "regular appearances on various television shows". I did that because the Conan show did not appear to overwhelm the other appearances in importance—they were all sort of the same running gag. If you think otherwise, share your thoughts. Binksternet (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My position is (and always has been) to deny a bad website undue coverage. I certainly do not think that any mention of it in the lead is necessary: it's a very small blip in the career of a 90-year-old actor. The fact that they have the abevigoda.com URL and rank just below WP on Google hits for "Abe Vigoda" angers me even more. They shouldn't be rewarded with "extra coverage" here. Abe Vigoda would be rolling over in his grave if he knew about this! (Couldn't resist ;>). Seriously, let's just remove the sentence from the lead, leave the cites as they are and hopefully expand this Start-class article with better refs (in more than one sentence) :> Doc   talk  10:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Best sentence in Wikipedia
Just gotta say, "Abe Vigoda is an American movie and television actor who appeared in such movies as The Godfather and Good Burger" may be the greatest sentence in the entirety of Wikipedia. Well done! --Jajasoon (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC
Should the lead section mention that "a website" was started to announce whether Vigoda was alive?

Discussion
In 2001 a website was created to check Vigoda's living "status": is he alive? Or is he dead? Brilliant. This happened many years after the false reports of his death, creatively making a name for itself. This website has now become part of the lead of the article, mostly because of one respected editor stepping in and "solving" the problem. See, I had been repeatedly removing the links to this asinine site (not even a borderline fansite) in the external links section for some time, as it was repeatedly being introduced. found some references for the site's existence, but then took it to the lead of the article. One of the main references used to back up the notability of the website (which is NOT affiliated with Vigoda in any way) erroneously claims that it is actually "his" website. The notability of the website's existence has been established enough to include it in the article itself, but why is it in the lead of the article? The fact that he was reported dead twice in the 1980's does not make this website notable enough to be put in the article lead. Doc  talk  06:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Include. We have discussed the issue before. I did not participate at Talk:Abe Vigoda because I had not yet seen the article. The discussion at Talk:Abe Vigoda was initiated by me, and the website was discussed. Discussion shifted to Talk:Abe Vigoda because six sources had been found but it seemed like too many. I hold that the website is named or shown to be important by five of these six sources, and the sixth sets the time frame as May 2001. Because I showed that the website was notable it was added to the article body. Once the article body text contained details about the website it was mentioned in the lead section, per WP:LEAD. I think the guideline on lead sections is the only applicable policy to be looked at. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * One more thing: note that a search on Google puts the website in position #1. The rest of the first page results I got, in order, are: Wikipedia, IMDb, MySpace, NNDB, Twitter, Blogspot, Facebook, Last FM, Post Present Medium. Trying to pretend the website does not exist or is not widely seen is a non-starter strategy. Trying to suppress a website that is already out there is not Wikipedia's style—we are descriptive, not prescriptive. We do not try to reduce the notability of something which is first in page rankings. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Simply because something is mentioned in the article body does not mean it goes into the lead - there is the factor of undue weight. The gaffes and many notable appearances are amply described in the lead without needing to mention the site. There are two short sentences in the article body about the site - just two, which could be made into one (as it is in the lead). Throwing six poor-quality references onto them (WP:CITECLUTTER) does not make it notable enough for the lead, and it gives undue weight to that site. How this is a sufficient reference for anything is still beyond me. The article should be more like the Biography.com entry which has the good taste to not even mention such a site. Instead we are glorifying crap like this. Yes, there are other sites just like it. Doc   talk  20:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I will also note that besides stonewalling me in the discussion in 2011 by simply ignoring me, and since no input has been garnered by outside editors, this edit is a violation of the WP:CONSENSUS policy. "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". I dispute this site being mentioned in the lead of the article vehemently. It's not notable enough for the lead. "Consensus arising from a rational discussion based on policy and common sense is the Wikipedia ideal". Discussion has been brushed aside by the editor who disagrees with me, and Binsksternet has decided that they are going to have their way here. 50:50 is not a consensus anywhere. No one else wants to chime in, so the "status quo" created by this one editor gets to stand? I have to literally edit war to get my point across? Not gonna happen. This is not the way it's supposed to work. If I write a lead, and not enough people object: do I get to say that WP:LEAD was violated because of the removal of any material based on my single opinion? I sincerely hope not. Doc   talk  05:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's participation here. The RfC bot has removed the template after nearly a month, and the consensus is clear. I have removed the mention of the website from the lead according to the results of this discussion. Doc  talk  07:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think the website should be mentioned in the lead section. Most of the notable things that Vigoda did happened before the dawning of the internet, so a Google search isn't exactly fair in this situation. I think that it is notable and does deserve inclusion in the body how it is in there now. Dreambeaver  (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep in article; remove from lead Clear-cut, per Dreambeaver  's remarks. -The Gnome (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep in article; remove from lead - After cursory review, I think I agree with The Gnome here. NickCT (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a talk page thread
I heard we're supposed to use them to work out disagreements over article content... *cough* Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 10:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In a perfect world, yes. I can't even get a post to stay up on the user talk page of the current obstacle to consensus, let alone make a revert of their additions without an edit-war. Vigoda just turned 92 years old! Some article we've got on him... Doc   talk  10:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Doc9871, you put some opaque and oblique posts up on my talk page; stuff that was so far from applicable that I removed them rather than replied to them. Here are the bits you added:
 * "The day I see North8000 topic-banned from the gun-control topic is the day I see 'the tanks roll in'. Do not attempt to silence the "right-wing" here: you will learn a valuable lesson on "freedom of speech" if you do. I will be watching this carefully. Cheers..."
 * "Obstructionists usually allow friendly discussion on their talk pages: those who attempt to silence real discussion through abuse of BLANKING are the real problem. Get it?"
 * The context was a discussion between me and Xenophrenic about the article Tea Party movement and the fallout of a great deal of tendentious editing at that article from a bloc of pro-TPM editors. I have no interest in the gun control articles nor do I wish to encourage any editor (including Doc9871) thinking that there is a violent military crackdown imminent against Wikipedia if certain editors are punished for disruption. To me, the Doc9871 contribution on my talk page looked like tin-foil hattery, and I tossed it out. It has no bearing on this article about Mr. Vigoda.
 * The reason I restored the WP:PRIMARY source is simple: it establishes May 2001 as the start of the website under discussion. No other source says when it started. I think the start is a basic fact of interest to the reader; an encyclopedic fact establishing a time frame. The reasoning was so simple that my thought could be easily conveyed via edit summary: "Revert;... needed to support May 2001 start date" and "Primary source reference confirms only one thing: May 2001 start date. No other source establishes timeline this way". I can discuss on the talk page with the best of them but I considered this matter so simple that I used the edit summary to get my point across. Even now, here on the talk page, I have not added to the reasoning; I have only used more words to get the same idea across. Binksternet (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The previous attempts to communicate with you on your talk page probably looked like "tin-foil hattery" as well, but it is more likely a symptom of an unwillingness to admit when you are wrong. If I have to drag you before every RfC for every change until you get sick of it: I will. I will not be stonewalled or threatened with reverts for the so-called undefined best interests of this article. And that's how that's going to go. Doc   talk  11:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In my 5.5 years on Wikipedia I've seen a lot of editors come and go. The ones that use over-the-top hyperbole are the ones that have the least staying power.
 * In this article, my use of a primary source is entirely within the guideline at WP:PRIMARY. The URL http://whois.domaintools.com/abevigoda.com says "Record created on 2001-05-07", which supports the website start date of May 2001. It is very simple. Binksternet (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going anywhere, so the "hyperbole" thing is not on. Those that have been around for 5 years tend to know more than most. You're in some rare company! Guidelines trump consensus, right? Doc   talk  11:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone fill me in: What exactly is the problem with this particular source? I can understand disputing the inclusion of a mention of the website (in fact, had I known about it when it was a topic of discussion, I would have opposed it), but what the hell is so controversial about sourcing it? Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 03:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't assume that editors who have been here for 5 1/2 years would petulantly revert any changes to his preferred edits and make no real effort to actually improve the article. Watching over the undoubtedly constructive changes I make, only to "step in" when it's something he insists must be there. I don't like having to explain that consensus policy trumps the WP:LEAD guideline, then having to go through the motions when challenged to a RfC. Not with an editor who has been here for this long. We don't need three citations for that sentence, and it was citation overkill to begin with. How about removing the middle citation, which 100% falsely claims that it is Vigoda's website? It is not true at all! But I'd get reverted there too, I bet. Doc   talk  04:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I keep an eye on this article, and I don't interfere with positive changes, but I "step in" if I detect any negative changes. If that is a crime then I'm guilty on some 8,000 Wikipedia articles. Haul me off to the slammer! Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You thought removing the mention of the site from the lead was a "negative change". You reverted me to prove it. But it wasn't a negative change. Why isn't removing a ref that erroneously claims it is Vigoda's own website somehow not a "positive" change? That's the cite (in your bid to further legitimize the website) that really needs to go anyway. "His current state (dead or alive) is continuously updated on his Internet website..." This is completely false; and therefore worthless as a legitimate reference. It is NOT Vigoda's website at all, and it has no legitimate affiliation with him whatsoever. You may not have noticed that when stacking up the refs. Doc   talk  04:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are discussing the Cynthia Ceilán reference, but Evanh2008 and I are talking about the DomainTools reference. It would help to keep the discussion on track if we were all talking about the same thing.
 * The only word that is wrong in the Cynthia Ceilán reference is the word "his". If she had said "a website" rather than "his website" there would be no problem. I see it as a minor quibble rather than a reason to delete. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have admitted that I was going after the wrong reference. I was wrong. The Cynthia Ceilán reference gives the reader the impression that it is Vigoda's website. That is misleading; and we don't need it to back up the website with two other references anyway. Not all references agree with each other, so it's best to err on the side of caution. The reference is misleading and extraneous, IMHO. This is a BLP, and we shouldn't have references in it that falsely claim a website to be his when it is not, no matter what they should have said. Doc   talk  05:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)