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