Talk:Brian Flemming

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

BrianFlemming (talk · contribs)

Archives

2006

Michel Gondry

How Brian Flemming demonstrated how Michel Gondry faked his Rubik's cube stunts (feet and nose): Youtube videos:

with feet: http://youtube.com/watch?v=TaVsaWjzsds
with nose: http://youtube.com/watch?v=KGCDB9tITZ4

202.109.114.178 23:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Christian category

I've reverted Mrwalkers yet again on this. This film is controversial and raises disputed points that christians find uncomfortable but that doesn't make it "anti-christian". Sophia 07:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "anti-christianity" category inclusion is not reflective of a Neutral point of view. The category deals with the active persecution of Christians, not just criticism of them. To be part of a category it needs to be cited & documented. --George100 09:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I saidd before

To enter a place of worship and leave propaganda decrying the faith is an act of some one who is against said faith. 20:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)~

What you think is unimportant - you must reference this claim from a reliable source - until then this edit is a violation of WP:BLP. You MUST read up on policy before editing again as posts such as yours can cause legal difficulties for wikipedia. Sophia 21:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claim has a reference from a reliable source

21:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)~

When given the choice between a neutral description of someone's actions and drawing conclusions about their motives, Wikipedia should choose the former in the vast majority of instances. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mention a reliable source but fail to provide one at this time. Acting as an administrator in this context, I must remind you to please review the biographies of living persons policy. We cannot take sourcing issues lightly in this sort of context. Please be specific and provide your source(s). Thank you. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Brian Flemming.jpg

Image:Brian Flemming.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate

Anyone else find it suspicious that his birthdate is claimed to be 6-6-66? I don't think it's asking too much for it to be cited. --Crushti (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same on IMDB. --Guillcote (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

puff piece

this article would be more credible were it labeled a PR or puff piece. is the subject paying you for this? what i mean is, i've seen much shorter articles about people FAR more important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.235.12 (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The guy hasn't done anything for the past 4 years, and even before that he barely did anything to warrant such a large wikipedia entry. The page is ridiculously detailed with info of everything he's done, even though most of it is of no importance whatsoever. I suggest the article is trimmed down considerably, or even deleted altogether if he doesn't do something notable soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.228.208.15 (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Someone else thinks Brian Flemming is not notable! Given that most popular bloggers have impacted more people than Brian has in the last decade and most of them are not given the hagiographical treatment of this article (for example: this article has had references to Brian's lesser-known escapades which paint him in a less-favorable light expunged). I think the WikiEditors need to review this entry for relevence and the actual notoriety of the subject. centuri0n (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

amazing childhood

He was born and raised in one day? That's astounding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.69.105 (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brian Flemming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]