Talk:Nathan Fielder

Middle Initial

On Letterman he showed his license and it clearly said "Nathan J. Fielder". I edited that in but it was reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.110.129.66 (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2016

Nathan Fielder's twitter account says his birthday is May 12, and not Feb 2. 73.212.77.57 (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: You linked to a random twitter account, not his own twitter. Can you link to where it says that on his profile? --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 22:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Major Edit Removal

This revision is being disputed by user Mistakenformatt

It is unclear why each item in the "Other Ventures, Personal Life, and Podcast Appearances" subheadings are being disputed.Nerdsplease (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for asking about it on the article's talk page this time. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should not contain trivia and non-noteworthy content. The edits you're referring to, both on this page and Nathan for You, are to remove this excessive content. Fielder starting Summit Ice is notable; a section of the website that states "if the mayor wants to give Mr. Fielder a key to the city ..." is not notable. This page is especially susceptible to non-noteworthy edits, as Fielder is not just a comedian, but one who specializes in pranks, and delivers in a dead-pan and tongue-in-cheek style. The key to the city line is clearly a tongue in cheek comment, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Likewise, comments like "Fielder once interviewed Dave Coulier" are completely irrelevant for an encyclopedic entry.

If you're serious about making worthwhile edits on Wikipedia, I suggest you read these pages: WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. Additionally, the WP:MOS can be a great resource. I hope this helps. Let me know if you have other questions. Mistakenformatt (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I partially agree about the "interviewed Dave Coulier on Coolio" part, but I think that's kind of noteworthy because it's something I'd want to know that he did (similar to how his filmography is noteworthy). Perhaps it's in the wrong category / sub-heading though? Also, can you please go through each item that you removed and explain why it was removed? You only touched on two of many items. For example, I feel the Podcast Appearances to be relevant (again, just like filmography is).

Also, the twitter experiments should be on there (perhaps the campaign to #hurtnathan shouldn't, but the four "experiments" definitely should be on there - they made the news and were a big deal at the time).

The "really good grades part", I agree shouldn't be in there (it was a joke, and Wikipedia isn't the place for jokes).

I can see how the part mentioning the blog he started might not be relevant, but I thought it was kind of noteworthy due to him "faking his death". I see now that it's not really a Wikipedia thing though.

The fact that he starred in that YouTube web series ("David") is noteworthy, in my opinion (again, it may be in the wrong category? But it seems relevant, just like filmography). I'm not sure why you removed the note about his band "Wild Ryce" but left in the part about his band "Side of Smooth"? I think both are noteworthy under "Other ventures - YouTube").

The "Instagram" part is also noteworthy. He got temporarily banned from the service for posting pics with inappropriate images in the background (I forgot to note that he was temporarily banned, but I can add and source that if it's agreed that it should be included).

His character of Ronald Shoub should also remain on there in "Other Ventures". He had a dedicated website to it and a promotional video.

Can you explain why his curious appearances with artist "Mac DeMarco" shouldn't be noted?

Also, the "Sneak Peak Q&A" part seems noteworthy, but I guess I could potentially see why that may not be a fit for his wiki page. I don't know why the part about him currently being in a relationship would be removed under his "personal life" section. He was quoted in an article stating that he was and I sourced it. What's wrong with that?

Also many other parts about his personal life were removed such as the part about the business school he attended, the elaborate prank his father pulled on him when he was younger that he said could have inspired him, the parts about the comedians/shows that influenced him, the part where he states that he prefers to be called "Nathan", him admitting he likes to make older women laugh, his prediction about magic, and the luggage story and his run-in with the police. Some of those I can see maybe being not acceptable or borderline, but some I feel are appropriate. For the ones you feel shouldn't be there, please explain why.

Sorry for the poor formatting, etc. of this response. Not trying to be combative and I apologize for the edit war (I'm new to this). Wasn't trying to be disruptive, I just put a lot of work into those edits and you just removed it all (or most of it) with no specific reasons (just generalizations). Hopefully you can see that from my point of view. I can understand your perspective now, and hopefully we can figure out what should and shouldn't be included now, with our little "battle" (for lack of a better word) behind us. How does it work if we can't come to an agreement on some items? I briefly read up on the MOS, BLP and MPOV links you provided. I'll try my best to adhere and if you see something that maybe isn't neutral, isn't sourced properly, isn't in the right style, etc., could you try to fix it instead of just outright removing it? Or let me know what needs fixing and I'll do it? Thanks. Nerdsplease (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, as you feel like you did a lot of work to only have it all removed. But, Wikipedia is not a place for trivia entries, and biographies on living people are especially sensitive parts of this site. The entries you listed above mostly fall into that category. I would suggest comparing this page to other comedians, such as Louis C.K. or Chris Rock. Louis, for example, is a professional, and his page tends to focus on his professional achievements and noteworthy events. It has dedicated sections for his "Early life" and "Personal life," but these tend to focus on the more broad facts -- such has his family lineage, where he went to school, and other noteworthy events, especially those which may have influenced him (although, I would argue that some of that is debatable). Finally, some general advice as you move forward: I would refrain from making large-scale edits; these are more likely to be flagged, and thus removed. If you feel like adding something noteworthy to an article, go ahead and do it, but since the basis of your frustration seems to be all your work being erased, I would suggest only making smaller edits until you become more comfortable with general Wikipedia standards. Mistakenformatt (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I know I listed a lot of it under "trivia" originally, but it wasn't all trivia. I removed what I felt was actually trivia and kept what I thought wasn't and put it under the appropriate existing sections.

I was frustrated that it was all removed, yes, but I understood later why some of it was (some things just didn't belong). However, what is frustrating now is that I reviewed/revised my initial edit, removed a bunch of stuff that didn't belong, and then it was still removed. Then, after asking multiple times why the latest edits were removed, I wasn't given an exact reason why for each item. Just a general "this isn't the place for trivia" response, despite my assertion that much of it wasn't trivia. I explained above which things I felt belonged and were noteworthy, but I'm not getting a specific reason why you feel they're not.

Are you planning on giving a reason for each item that I listed or are you suggesting I just add one or two things at a time over the course of a period of time and then each individual smaller edit can get discussed as it gets added?Nerdsplease (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Mistakenformatt??

As I've said, noteworthiness is important. In my opinion, most or all of the content you referenced does not meet that criteria. You can add things, but remember, this is not a draft of a future biography of Nathan, it's an encyclopedia entry. Ask yourself if you would see it in a Brittanica entry. And if it is, make sure you find a reputable source to back it up. Look for facts and relevant news, not trivia. Him "currently dating someone" doesn't belong, unless that "someone" is named, and they're cited in news sources as being together. Nathan is not an A-list celebrity, so his dating life is not as widely discussed as someone like Brad Pitt, for example. Mistakenformatt (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Really good grades

Nathan’s grades (as shown from his real report card in the intro to his hit TV series “Nathan For You) include: B in Strategic Management A- in Venture Marketing B in Venture Planning and Finance C+ in Acquiring Expert Ventures B+ in Portfolio Practicum

We have the proof from a primary source. To cover up the mans accomplishments is a travesty to all lovers of the truth. Littlejonahhill (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)