Talk:Michael Murphy (actor)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Michael Murphy (actor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214090438/http://movies.yahoo.com:80/movie/contributor/1800041174/bio to http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800041174/bio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Listen, everything on this page is accurate. You choose to doubt its veracity? Fine, but don't allow your certitude to be navigated by a lack of requisite enough ambition to easily seek out the necessary information required to determine something's verifiable factuality, as well as to understand the qualification of these, my following arguments (which, I am sorry to say, are ALSO not sourced):

1) People, altruistically and passionately take their time and produce efforts (we all know this), often times quite selflessly, to make meaningful informational and histirical contributions to this incomparable, vast, and ever-growing online encyclopedia. To delete an entire "television appearances" section from an article is to throw out others' hard work contributed, time spent, and diligence delivered, to all, while not getting paid by anyone to do it, but being paid by oneself for giving it. It's gratifying. Why else would one do this? I don't think that too many people, here, and elsewhere online, necessarily do this only to have it be undone, and, perhaps, quite unfairly, especially when standards of editing and sourcing are NOT being equally and consistently applied throughout the entirety of the Wikipedia universe, nor administered and policed equally and consistently. And also, too, the whole-piece removal of an artist's (i.e. Michael Murphy's) work, the many numerous contributions to the industry and artistry of television (and other mediums) he has made, is a blatant and thoughtless disregard of his work, not to mention it is the effective erasure of a sizable portion of both an artist's canon, as well as history, writ-large, and an unnecessarily extra-judicial extrication of optimal informational availability, allowing Wikipedia to be more effectively competitive when it comes to accessing sought-after information. This is someone's work. This work is a part of our multi-generational cultural identity, and evidence of our collective successive progress.

2) You doubt a piece of information is real? All right, perogative acknowledged. Go find it then, don't just disregard it, nor fascistically expect every-single-everything to be bloody sourced every single bloody time. I mean, these days, all that you have got to do is hunt around a little bit for some evidence, find proof, and to truly discover if something is real, true, or neither. But, one must try, or this all meaningless nothingness.

3) "Removed unsourced material"? What?! Does that includes an entire litany of television appearances? Why? "Unsourced"? What do you mean? You mean, every television series appearance (be it regular, semi-regular, and/or guest-starring turns) have to all be sourced, and if they are not, the whole lot gets effectively gutted as a consequence? You're kidding me, right?! If that's how it's all done then, I would like you (and any other looney tune who'd care to join you) to please go to other Wikipedia entries and delete, en masse, every single section of the articles where the subjects' television works (heck, throw out any little entry here and there that you'd like, or even the whole of their listed film and stage work out the window as well, while you're at it), also unsourced, and are all presented, too, in chart/column formats that are all different and possess their own respective structural consistencies in both form and informational content, with nary a single citing-of-source found in those works-listings either. The various differences, comparisons-wise, in the chart-structure ranges from, as far as differences are concerned, quite subtle, to quite blatantly obvious. I would like to recommend the entries for the film, television, and stage actors Charles Lane, Tony Roberts, Cindy Pickett, Mary Jane Croft, and Charles Hallahan. Go see how different they are, go see that there are no citings-of-sources in their filmographies, and how their television sections of their filmographies are, as it is the case, too, with Michael Murphy's, bear no citings of sources. None. PERIOD.

Please, in the name of uniformity of consistency, and for all of the other control freaks out there editing pages on Wikipedia, go and delete all of the unsourced sections bearing information, and that includes all of the articles, all of the lists, all of the filmographies, all of the discographies, all of the collections, and all of the portals that you can get your mouse to click on.

Please, eviscerate away! Or, preferably, please, do not. How about let's just do more, do better, be more, and be better, together, here, on Wikipedia. 2600:1014:B073:93FB:4C90:A960:666:FF0D (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)