Talk:James Sloyan

Group
What on earth is the reason for the removal of the group reference to which both James Sloyan and Jonathan Pryce belong? You are undoing an objective fact which many fans of these actors recognize throughout the country. There are even mail-in order t-shirts and other memorabilia available bearing the name of this group. I do not understand why it cannot be mentioned in a sentence in the article as it is an objective fact with respect to both Sloyan and Pryce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpsloyan (talk • contribs)
 * Can you find acceptable verification of this claim? If so, please provide it here. Tijuana Brass 05:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, a simple survey of Sloyan dedicated pages on myspace or anywhere else on the web will refer to this group classification somewhere. I am willing to omit the link from sloyan's page only if the elite group page will be allowed to grow, so you can see that such is actually a national phenomenon followed by a wide variety of persons, and persons whom I'm sure will eventually check wikipedia for any information they can find on it, as it is still a new phenomenon, relatively speaking. It is absolutely unfair and beyond the scope of anyone's authority to delete a perfectly legitimate page which has not even had a chance to be viewed and edited by persons who may be seeking such information out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpsloyan (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry. MySpace is not an acceptable source, nor is suggesting that readers do a "simple survey". This appears to be your own original research, which is not material which can be accepted here. Look over Verifiability if you're serious about adding encyclopedic content here. Introduction may help as well. Otherwise, please stop adding this material into the article. Tijuana Brass 05:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed unsupportable claim by user TijuanaBrass that Sloyan's character in The Sting, "Mottola", was "murdered by con-artists". This is an interesting theory, but no verfiable evidence from a reliable source could be located to support this claim, as required by Wikipedia guidelines (see Verifiability, & Fringe theories). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.149.71 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not the one who added that information in. Interestingly enough, it came from the other IP address which has shown a sudden interest in this article. Another coincidence, eh? Tijuana Brass 22:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * TijuanaBrass, incorrect. Please review the Wikipedia guidelines on honestyand see this link if you need further clarification on the history of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.149.71 (talk • contribs)


 * 66, it's very clear from the link you gave that TijuanaBrass just cleaned up the article and tweaked some punctuation. The first reference to murder by con artists was added by you at edit . eaolson 06:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah! Another wikipedian who does not understand the English language! Eaolson, please return to the link you posted of my edit and note the clause: "murdered by the very numbers racket..." Now, please note the langauge on this page: "murdered by con-artists."  Are you able to see the difference?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.149.71 (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Peacock wording / superfluous content
Following the quick departure of User:Jpsloyan and sudden appearance of two remarkably well-informed IPs who have shown interest only in this article, there's been an introduction of a good amount of peacock words into the article. For those unfamiliar with the term, it refers to largely unnecessary "showy" words -- for example, "the widely-respected, economically diverse practices of John Doe make him well known". The guideline followed at Wikipedia is, in so many words, the "show, don't tell" concept; that is, let the facts speak for themselves rather than dropping in peacock words. I've edited these terms out and encourage editors to be aware of their wording when adding new material.

There's also been a lot of superfluous content which isn't particularly notable; for example, the phrasing used by the subject in car commercials. That he has been a spokesperson in commercials is encyclopedic and notable, that he has uttered single adjectives as a part of them is not. There was also some dramatically toned detail and unnecessary content in the movie section, which was also removed.

As there has been a clear conflict of interest issue in this article recently, extra care needs to be given to keep relevant content while removing that which wanders into self-promotional or resume filler. Thanks to those who've taken the time lately to keep an eye on the material here. I hope that the COI problems will tone down in the near future. Tijuana Brass 06:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't see how "practices of John Doe" could constitute "showy" words. Certainly, the practices of a particular person can, and should be noted in that person's biography if such practices meet the other Wikipedia standards. For example: "The law practices of John Doe were in tax, real estate, and estate planning" might well depict a biographic fact of neutral, "non-showy" tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.149.71 (talk • contribs)


 * The superfluous adjectives - "widely-respected, economically diverse, well-known" - were the examples of peacock wording, not the practices themselves. In any case, don't get caught up on the example; if you're interested in reading more about the policy, Avoid peacock terms goes into more detail. Tijuana Brass 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture Nomination
I believe it is time to add a picture of James Sloyan to the article. Any objection to a picture of him in costume as the naive ferengi on Star Trek: The Next Generation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpsloyan (talk • contribs) 08:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally, screen shots from television shows and movies aren't permissible (due to copyright laws) unless discussing that specific character in the context of an article - unless it's released as a publicity still, in which case, it would be fine.
 * A personally made photograph, as long as it was released under GFDL, CC or public domain, would be fine. Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. In spite of this notice here, someone still added the screenshot of him from TNG, in spite of clearly not qualifying as legitimate fair use. (gone!) 69.196.168.67 (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed text
I've removed the following text twice now: "During the first decade of voice-overs (1989-1999), Sloyan contributed primarily disjunctive verbal descriptions, such as "relentless", "pursuit", and "perfection" to supplement the visual material onscreen. In contrast, Sloyan has added more elaborate descriptions to modern Lexus commercials, ocassionally including brief describtions of novel features or a narration of the events onscreen." This is really a discussion of the ad copy, not anything having to do with Sloyan. Even if he were the author of the copy, it's pretty trivial. eaolson (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * An anon keeps adding the text back, and I've removed it again along with the text "It is unknown whether Sloyan's contributions constitute a joint work of authorship, under the current Federal copyright laws, or a commissioned work under the work-for-hire doctrine." The copyright status of this work can't be unknown, because someone has to know who owns the copyright. What the author probably meant was "I don't know if...", which just means the sentence is unsupported. And I still say the text about the fact that his voiceovers were single words is completely uninteresting and irrelevant to the article. eaolson (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eaolson, incorrect. Any copyright is technically unknown until passing through fully litigated adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction.  In the interim, copyright ownership and respective rights may be assumed to be valid, and treated accordingly.  For example, one who has acquired a copyright fruadulently, or in violation of statute, may think that the copyright is valid - and others may treat it as such - however, the status is unknown until such matter is officially adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction (there are numerous other exceptions: the subject matter may not be original, or may be too substantially similar to another work to qualify for its own rights, etc. etc.) Thus, how respective parties treat a copyright, in itself, is not dispositive: the the only known, or given, is that there is some authorship with respect to an work of authorship that is published or otherwise made public.  James Sloyan, then, is quite possibly an author of these works, which is quite worthy of being noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.193.226 (talk • contribs)
 * You haven't asserted that he had any creative contribution to these advertisements, a necessary component to copyright. Shall we also point out, then, that whether he owns the copyright to the Star Trek episodes he appeared in is unknown? I also notice you re-added the text about the "single words" in his voice overs without explanation or discussion. eaolson (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree; what Eaolson has pointed out is a combination of speculation, original research, and non-notable filler. Wikilawyering isn't going to convince anyone here, I'm afraid. Tijuana Brass (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection
I'm temporarily semi-protecting this article against edits made by new and unregistered users. It's clear that someone is trying to game the system here, and I don't care to entertain them any longer. Tijuana Brass (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hot article
Wow - it appears there has been a lot of activity on this page - again! Also, most of it looks like it is back and forth over a certain section of the article. As far as I can tell, it looks like the last ip, *76, was attempting to demonstrate authorship of the commercial to make the details relevant, as requested by Eaolson. It also appears that both agree that the status of authorship is unknown, although this apparently is quite common. If I might act as the neutral party here - I notice that *76 is a relatively new user, and thus may need some guidance as to the wiki rules under WP:BRD. However, he does appear to be attempting to meet your request for a showing of authorship, Eaolson. Is there a solution that will be mutually acceptable? As Eaolson appears the be the senior user, and thus more familiar with the wikipedia rules, I think it would be appropriate to ask him for some further guidance. Hopefully, with some further assistance and cooperation, this Wiki article can be the best it can be. JPisano (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of adding a section about Sloyan's personal endorsements (product placement) career. In accordance with what has been suggested, are there any objections from the powers-that-be on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.173.73 (talk • contribs)

No. You're not a neutral third party, and deceptively using anonymous IP addresses via open proxies and gaming the system are against policy. Wikipedia is not the place for indiscriminate collections of information or resumes. It's time to stop this. Tijuana Brass (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Brass, who are you addressing with that last response? It seems a little confused. You say there are no objections, and then follow with something about neutral parties. I don't understand.... Who is "not a neutral third party" and is "gaming the system are against public policy"? I'm not sure why this response follows my question about a product-placement-career section. If you do not further clarify, I will just assume your answer to adding this section is a "no".  Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.173.73 (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)