Talk:Remy Blumenfeld

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2018
Remy Blumenfeld (born October 13, 1965 ) is a British television producer and format creator, who co-founded the production company Brighter Pictures which he sold to Endemol for £15m in 2004. He is TV format creator of There's Something About Miriam, Gay, Straight or Taken?, Wudja Cudja, and Undercover Lovers.

Until 2010 he was director of formats at ITV. He is the son of Yorick and Helaine Blumenfeld, and the grandson of Erwin Blumenfeld. In 2013 he made a documentary – The Man Who Shot Beautiful Women – about his grandfather for BBC4. He has also worked on the documentary The Other Francis Bacon, and on Get a New Life, a reality TV show.

Blumenfeld was ranked #19th in The Independent on Sunday's 2006 Pink List of most influential gay men and women in the UK.

Career
Blumenfeld has created and produced more than 30 original Television series, including BBC1's Tabloid Tales with Piers Morgan and My Worst Week, and BBC2's Get A New Life, reportedly by The Guardian

He founded his production company Brighter Pictures along with Gavin Hay in 1991. Later, Brighter Pictures was bought by Endemol in 2001, but he remained as creative director at Endemol UK for Brighter Pictures. Later, Blumenfeld joins a production company, ITV as ITV Studios director of formats, where he exported TV shows such as Come Dine With Me, I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! and Four Weddings around the world and launched production divisions in the France and Spain.

In 2016, he co-founded The Hot House, a £3 million (US$4.3 million) TV production incubator. He has also produced many plays including Eunuchs In My Wardrobe, Julie Burchill Is Away, and Tennessee Williams's Confessional.

Recognition

 * In 2006, he appeared on the Independent on Sunday "Pink List" as the 19th most influential LGBT person in the UK.

removal of verified text as "promotional"
Regardless of the origin of the above edit request, the text was all verified and obviously promotional text (e.g., nonsense about volume of created shows) was removed. The subject of the article in certainly notable having been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources and those qualities also apply to the text. The remaining text fully complies with WP:BLP and WP:PROMO. The reversion by therefore does not comply with these policies and is knee-jerk reversion. In the spirit of WP:BRD, I am not re-reverting but starting this discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've somewhat boldly undone your edit, as I don't believe that this was a good-faith request by a bona fide editor – this is patently either sockpuppetry by indeffed editor, or undisclosed paid editing (or, I suppose, conceivably both of the above). Please see the brief discussion on my talk-page, and the very pertinent question asked there by . Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ... and actually ping this time ...Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , as I said above, I did not just accept the edit request as a good faith effort. If you look at the edit history of this talk page, you will see I removed a large amount of their proposed text and I personally verified every proposed reference and the text it was supposed to support.  As I said, the remaining text complies just as if it had been written de novo by an unconnected user. The revert was unjustified. I trust you will not continue to object? Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , if the content had been written ex novo by an unconnected contributor such as yourself I would not have dreamt of reverting your addition (heaven knows, there's plenty of room for improvement!). But it wasn't; the content was created (or at least posted here) by someone who is apparently either a sockpuppet or an UPE. We have no reason to assist editors in either of those classes in any undertaking, so – with all respect – yes, I do object. Do please invite other opinions in whatever way you think best. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Justlettersandnumbers, as much as I loathe paid editing, we don't do vigilante justice and make up policy to justify it. We have no policy whatsoever that forbids us to add material to an article simply because it was once written or requested by a paid editor (declared or otherwise). Eggishorn's edit should be restored. He/she personally edited the requested material before adding it to the article. It is now neutral and well-referenced. The subject is notable. It was Eggishorn's editorial decision to add it to the article. I am now going to restore it with further edits. Both those edits will be our decision and our responsibility and no one else's. Voceditenore (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , the policy which prevents us from adding content submitted by an undeclared paid editor is this one. It is binding on all of us. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No, that policy prohibits editing by undisclosed paid editors. It says nothing about editors in good standing making edits like the ones under discussion here. In fact, this has been relatively common practice, also with re-creating articles created by banned editors, on the understanding that the editor adding the material or re-creating the article takes responsibility for it. In any case, note that neither Eggishorn nor I have added the material requested by verbatim and that he has admitted that he is a paid editor here. Voceditenore (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I have now extensively edited the article for coherence and other factual issues. The text is now quite different from what the paid editor had requested. Voceditenore (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you for confirming my interpretation of policy and for restoring the text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)