HWWilson

Adding unverifiable entry about Kip Noll

How did you get access to the interview with Kip Noll from the Stallion magazine? I mean, I don't know whether Kip Noll is dead or not, but there is no proof that Kip Noll is dead, even if he may be Thomas Earl Hagen. If concerned, please go to Talk:Kip Noll. Please do not add back that entry until it is confirmed by sources that Kip is dead. --George Ho (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"It appears" is a perfectly legitimate qualifier for this article. I have the STALLION magazine interview with Kip Noll and his reference to his birthday, birth location, and nine siblings by gender is more than enough to document the statement. If you have evidence that "Kip Noll" is living, present it; he or someone who knows him should be readily available to do so. You obviously have an emotional stake in this and I respect that, but your continuing deletions seem to be merely a tantrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HWWilson (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. Since we should avoid violating the WP:3RR, I have filed a report about Kip Noll in WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kip Noll. --George Ho (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Best of luck with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HWWilson (talk • contribs) 13:25, 20 February 2012‎ (UTC)

Are you not going to read the report and responses? And what do you mean, "best of luck"? Have you read WP:5P, WP:OR, WP:BLP, and WP:V? Look, I discussed you and want to be sure that you know what you are doing: verifying his living status. Presuming that Kip Noll is dead without verifying sources becomes nothing more than a violation of "No original research" rule. And I don't think WP:IAR helps at all. --George Ho (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)By the way, please don't forget to sign your comments with this: (--~~~~). I don't have to substitute "unsigned" for you, unless you haven't signed it at the time of posting your comment. --George Ho (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

MAJOR UPDATE: The entry was removed, but not by me, for a violation of WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTHESIS. --George Ho (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course he's dead and you do Kip/Tom a tremendous disservice by denying him his dignity and place in history. My entry has been picked-up by enough sources now that it is out there and will stay out there; What a petty little man you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HWWilson (talk • contribs) 22:55, 20 February 2012‎ (UTC)

...No offense, but we have to stick with the rules of Wikipedia. Why here instead of WP:BLPN? Look, contact JFHJr because he called that entry you added as a violation of WP:BLP and WP:OR. If you don't agree, please explain before you that entry again; even if you don't agree, please discuss before you do something irrational. Calling me a "petty man" can be grounds of violating WP:CIVIL, isn't it? As explained before, regardless of "death", per WP:V, truth must be verified by sources. Without sources, there should be no necessity to add that back again. Adding an unverifiable death entry is a disservice to Wikipedia (and to Kip Noll and his relatives and friends and legal advisors, even if he may be possibly deceased). --George Ho (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To help you understand, look at Talk:Storm in a Teacup (film). I tried to add the copyright status of that film, but I did not have verifiable sources that confirm a copyright status of that British film. Same should go for (possibly living) Kip Noll. --George Ho (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

KIP NOLL is a fictional character. Thomas Earl Hagan is a real person and is dead. Are you the legal representation for ... who? You have no standing in this matter at all. I think you are out of your element, with all due respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HWWilson (talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 February 2012‎ (UTC)

"Fictional character"? That's a stage name, not a fictional. ...*sigh* I know you're not a troll, are you? I have already contacted JFHJr about this matter, so wait for that person until he replies. --George Ho (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Kip Noll is a character in porno movies, never was and never will be a real person. He's the same as Scarlett O'Hara. I'm surprised that this concept is unclear to you. You need to get a real life yourself, you really do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HWWilson (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 February 2012‎ (UTC)

Oh, boy. If he were a fictional character, prove that he is. Otherwise, Kip Noll is verifiable as a real person, verified by credits from his contributions to the industry. Sources verified him as a real actor, and establishing him as a fictional character in an encyclopedia article without verification may do no help to your point. You're just using metaphors, aren't you? --George Ho (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Great, I hope this is not a battleground, is it? Have we done teamwork here? Let's read WP:5P and WP:Wikipedia is not about winning, shall we? --George Ho (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, HWWilson. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding your additions of a possible but unverifiable "death" about Kip Noll. The discussion is about the topic Kip Noll. Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS of sources at Kip Noll

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Kip Noll. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. JFHJr (㊟) 04:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Kip Noll, you may be blocked from editing. JFHJr (㊟) 12:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Kip Noll, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. JFHJr (㊟) 17:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for inserting unsourced information and using Wikipedia articles for editorialising, contrary to our policies on verifiability and neutrality. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Some unsolicited advice re WP:BLP articles

I hope I'm not beating a dead horse when I offer this unsolicited advice regarding the changes you'd like to see at the Kip Noll article. I understand your points above to the effect that Kip Noll is a fictional character. The article, however, is clearly about the actor and not the character. The fact that you'd like include his real name and death shows that the content you'd like to add pertains to the real person, and not a fictional person (the fictional person's "real" name must have been Kip Noll, and I doubt the character ever "died" as such). On balance, I hope you'll consider "Kip Noll" to be a real person's stage name, since the actor appears to have been credited consistently under this name (spelling variations aside), and again, the article on its own terms is actually about the actor. Compare Peter North.

If you'd like the real name of this actor to appear in the article about him, you need a first reliable source stating that is/was indeed his real name. Unless that reliable source also says he is deceased, you need a second one to support the notion that he is deceased. Having the same birthday and family description could lead one to conclude it's the same person, but that conclusion needs to be found in a verifiable reliable source. Otherwise, even evaluating or stating the similarities in the article is original research despite the fact that the information being compared appears in reliable sources. And "it appears" is not any kind of acceptable qualifier, since it's your analysis, unless "it appears" is in that reliable source you're citing. That said, I think what you're trying to add is very likely true. So I'll wrap up by suggesting looking for a reliable source ideally connecting the stage name to the real name as well as dying. Next best would be something reliable stating just that the real name of the actor is in fact what it seems to be.

Feel free to leave a note at WP:BLPN if you have a question or concern about WP:BLP content. The thread about Kip Noll is still there, but will be archived after 5 days of inactivity, so start another Kip Noll thread if you don't see it listed. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has shut down any discussion of what happened to Kip Noll. The evidence of the Hagen obituary and the Noll interview (same birthdate and birthplace, nine siblings, six of them brothers), should be ample to show, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that Kip Noll and Tom Hagen were the same person and that he/they are deceased. The qualifier in my original post ("It appears that....") makes inclusion even more valid. There will never be the evidence that Wiki demands and so the Kip Noll entry will never be complete and accurate. Too bad, he deserves better than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HWWilson (talk • contribs) 01:26 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hon, please wait until your block time is over. What's wrong with going to WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kip Noll before your block? To be honest, I am not sure whether Tom is Kip and Kip is Tom. I know that even the same birthdate and birthplace and siblings won't help that much, would it? --George Ho (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

June 2014

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Kip Noll. It's been two years since your 24-hour block on the same page. Please make constructive edits in the future; otherwise, your edits will be a waste of time and further reverts. George Ho (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Kip Noll. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. George Ho (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Do not use multiple IP addresses to vandalize Wikipedia, like you did at Kip Noll. Such attempts to avoid detection, or circumvent the blocking policy will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia you may be blocked from editing without further notice. George Ho (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Unblock: This was an abuse of the blocking process by George Ho. I believe IMDb is a valid published source for additional entries on the death of Kip Noll, he apparently does not. Mr Ho's editorial arrogance seems to know no bounds.