User talk:Fsm83/Archive 2

Bad Teacher
This may not have belonged in the Box office, but it did belong in the Reception section. You could have easily moved the valuable information there instead of deleting it. Not very good editing technique. Thanks — Mike  Allen   04:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The intent was to remove the detail about a film grade from the box office section because that had no relevance there. Sorry if my decision upset you, but I think it was a reasonable one.  I did not consider it as valuable as you apparently do so therefore I did not move it to reception. That is a judgment I am comfortble with, but I see that you have placed it in reception, which is fine, as it is practical there.  Sometimes reasonable editors can disagree on what is valuable and what isn't.  I'm OK with that.  I don't feel my technique was poor, but I appreciate the input and I always try to take everything into account when I do make a decision.  Thanks Fsm83 (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail: why not a reliable source?
Why is the Daily Mail (UK) not a reliable source? Where do you get the interpretation of media sources as "reliable" or not? What are the guidelines for determining which ones are reliable or not? Can they be argued and possibly changed, or is it set in stone by upper-level admin.'s? Where's the source (if any) for the determination? This is very frustrating and it seems to me the determination of some sources are subjective by the whims of an editor instead of objectively based. Thanks! --Katydidit (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Katydidit, thanks for the question and I appreciate the positive tone that you asked. Some editors are not as pleasant as you and I also really appreciate your attempts to make the Kunis article as good of an article as possible.  As for your question, what wiki attempts to be is a place where you can go for "truthful and accurate" information and not something that is purly tabloid gossip.  This is why in the past some have taken things down explaining that wiki is not a tabloid.  The Daily Mail is a tabloid, they run with stories or make statements purely to sensationalize or get reactions.  They are not at all interested in being accurate or truthful.  Any rumor they are more then willing to post.  For example, they are the ones that ran with the story that Kunis was pregnant, which is not true at all, and quite honestly is absurd, forcing Kunis's reps to come out and make a statement that it is not true.  But this is at the heart of the difference between tabloid journalism and sincere, professional journalism.  It is not that the Los Angeles Times, or even something like MSN.COM or CNN cannot get something wrong, but they have more of an integrity at stake where they will have more fact checkers and attempt to get a story correct before posting it. Tabloids such as Daily Mail, or Perez Hilton, or Radar online do not care if it is true or not, and do nothing to fact check.  I am not a high enough level of an admin for the exact notations on what is the wiki standard, but I do know that it exists and that tabloids are not considered reliable sources.
 * I also appreciate your enthusiasm on the Kutcher relationship, but some things have been reverted by me or other editors because it is again, either not accurate, or just not relevant enough to be a part of the article. For example you recently posted a link on Mila and Ashton adopting a dog.  Again that was another example of a story that was based on tabloid journalism, with no basis in fact.  And again with Wiki we are trying to have a higher standard.  We don't want it to be like a tabloid, we only want it to provide factual information.  The fact is that dog that tabloids incorrectly stated was adopted by Mila and Ashton had been Ashton's dog for years.  There is no truth to them adopting a dog, or even wanting to adopt a dog.  But honestly, even if you do not believe me or trust me on that, and even if it was true, it would not be relevant enough for the article.  I remember seeing paparrazi pictures a few months ago of Mila picking up a case of toothpase from her dentist office.  And nobody would suggest there should be a post in the personal section indicating she had bought toothpaste.  Whether she ever adopts a dog or not, would not be something for the wiki article.  The goal is to have it fact based with items that are important in pushing her career forward, or events that were signifcant enough stories in her personal life where it got major national news exposure and attention, such as the date to the Marine ball.  I hope that helps. Fsm83 (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Mila Kunis
Hi Fsm83, exactly which elements of wiki policy are your referring to in terms of which the section I removed qualifies for being noteworthy? It is unfortunately a reality that the project 'allows' two sets of parameters and when it comes to people known for being known it is a free for all - a lassitude that you would never find in a REAL encyclopaedia. But I don't expect people to know the difference between an encyclopaedia and People Magazine.


 * Hi, this was debated for a very short time on the talk page when it was first entered on the Kunis article almost 4 years ago when the national story broke. It was concluded at that time that because it was a national story, that got national attention, including the soldier being interviewed on ABC news, the parents of the soldier being interviewed by a national news organization, as well as other national news outlets, that it was deemed noteworthy to be included in the article on her.  I would agree with you if this was a "People magazine" style article on a story about where she spent her vacation, or what she named her dog. :)  I think this is raised above that when it gets significant national news coverage, including coverage from ABC news, etc.  This article was also graded and reviewed two times by different editors to get the good article rating and it was never suggested to remove that section.Fsm83 (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)