Talk:Mike Wozniak

Removal of Prod on 2/14
I have removed the prod placed on this article. I disagree with the assertion that the article should be deleted. While the article does indeed fail WP:Entertainer, it meets WP:GNG and WP:Notability, which override WP:Entertainer, as WP:Entertainer is merely an additional point of entry for notability, not a replacement of the general notability guidelines. The individual has multiple, non-trivial, media mentions in reliable sources (listed below) that establish notability sufficient to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. In light of the sources, I think the individual is marginally notable, sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. Since I can certainly see how one might disagree, feel free to nominate for deletion via AfD. I think the article needs work, not deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/leisure/4071335.Interview__Mike_Wozniak/ (interview with media outlet)
 * http://www.chortle.co.uk/comics/m/33410/mike_wozniak (trivial mention but lends weight)
 * http://www.edfringe.com/shows/detail.php?action=shows&id=1480 (trivial mention but lends weight)
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/reviews/mike-wozniak-medina--negociants-edinburgh-festival-901745.html (a review by a major newspaper)
 * http://www.spoonfed.co.uk/artist/comedy-1524/mike-wozniak-17603/ (significant mention is less reliable media)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mike Wozniak. 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/20090311015158/http://www.ifcomedy.com/newcomers.html to http://www.ifcomedy.com/newcomers.html
 * Added tag to http://www.timeout.com/london/comedy/blog/5450/Mike_Wozniak-Medina_Negociants.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090516074251/http://www.amusedmoose.com/article/amusedmoose_laughoff_awards.html to http://www.amusedmoose.com/article/amusedmoose_laughoff_awards.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Spoiler/no source given
I don't understand why my edit was undone.

1. Having a spoiler to a series that hasn't even finished airing yet is surely a terrible addition to an article? 2. There's not even a source and I couldn't find any proof that he actually won series 11 of Taskmaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverEye91 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021
Remove the information that Mike won Series 11 of Taskmaster, or at least put in a spoiler tag. Series 11 hasn't fully aired yet and there is no source, or any easily accessible information that he has won. Wikipedia articles for the contestants on Taskmaster are frequently visited when the audience doesn't know the people. To have a wikipedia article feature such a prominent spoiler to a show that it is not even possible to have legally seen yet makes for a very bad wikipedia article. When said spoiler doesn't even have a source it becomes even more questionable and is essentially a rumor.

I would also like to say to whoever keeps reverting the edits: Please talk, don't just do. It is very frustrating when you're having, what you feel was, a good edited reverted with no explanation. SilverEye91 (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems this is all sorted now. Because the content was not sourced, it was removed and an admin has protected the article to prevent further disruption. For future reference per WP:SPOILER, generally spoilers are allowed and should not be removed if appropriately sourced. S0091 (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand that spoilers should be allowed on Wikipedia articles and I don't wish to imply that I have a problem with those as a general rule. However, spoilers before said source is even out is a different thing entirely. Especially when they aren't sourced. Seems more like vandalism at that stage. But thanks for clearing it up anyway!
 * Yes, agreed in this instance is was at the very least disruptive if not outright vandalism (it may not even be true). I do need to clarify, I did not clear it up.  That was done by Ponyo (I think you posted a note to her as well).  Also, I think the reason you were reverted was simply being "caught in the fray" of the disruption and another editor making unrelated edits to the article. S0091 (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Medical background
Wozniak's medical background is important context for his comedy career. It is well sourced in several newspaper interviews with him and other profiles of him. But, whenever this information is added to the page, regardless of the source cited, it is swiftly removed by one particular user. This appears to have been happening since the page's creation. I am not sure what the rationale for removing this information is as:

- It is true, and corroborated in multiple sources

- It is an important fact for a biography page to contain

I have re-added the information for now, with a newspaper interview as the source. If there is more information as to why this should not be included, please discuss it here. TheDissilent (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I see that the information about his medical background has been removed again based on a Taskmaster Podcast mention. I would note that the podcast mention that his medical background is fake could very well be a joke. As corroborating evidence that his medical background might be true I offer the British doctor register, where an inactive entry for a Michael James Wozniak having graduated from London University in 2003 exists https://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/6077963. Procrastigator (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I added this information without looking at the talk page., you appear to have removed this information multiple times over two years. Would you be able to provide an explanation for removing information sourced to reliable sources? Sdrqaz (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)