Talk:James Cawley

Fair use rationale for Image:ST-NewVoyages.jpg

Image:ST-NewVoyages.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) 04:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Identity of James Cawley

While James Cawley's notoriety remains questionable, I'm willing to accept that he deserves a Wikipedia article. That said, that this article was largely created by User:Plinstrot might cause one to raise an eyebrow and ask, "Was this article created by the very subject of the article?" I would therefore ask Plinstrot if he is, indeed, James Cawley - if not, then I would like to apologize, and would hope that he understands my concern. Brash (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, no I'm not James Cawley or in any way even remotely affiliated with him. I just happened to come across the page (or did I create it?) where there was hardly any info at all, so I updated it from time to time as he announced new projects. If I was monopolizing the page or anything, feel free to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plinstrot (talk • contribs) 01:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Per WP:BOLD, I have redirected this article to the Phase II article, since this article is redundant with it, beyond giving an unsourced date of birth. The actor is not independently notable, and has been covered only in the context of his Phase II fan work. See WP:BLP1E. If someone disagrees, feel free to revert, and we can discuss over an AFD. THF (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was no consensus to delete. Thanks to everyone who participated. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Research James Cawley

Before anything should be posted on him, anyone should check on the real facts instead of articles that he was interviewed in.

1) Though James may be an Elvis impersonator, it is NOT his day job. 2) James was an extra or background performer on Star Trek XI. While usually when someone says they have a part or cameo that usually indicates that he was an actor. 3) Many people have put money into building the sets and are never mentioned or given credit. 4) If you really want to research James check the court records in Elizabethtown NY under lawsuits filed against him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.27.133 (talk) 06:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Do you have some citations to back up your statements? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

An anti-Cawley fan? —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. They have been reverted twice by two different editos, and I've left messages on their usertalk page, encouraging them to bring some citations here and seek a consensus. If the same edits are offered again sans discussion or citation, we have means to ensure they aren't introduced a fourth time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

All you have to do is a background search on him in the Elizabethtown Court House. I would trust legal documents that are filed in a court house before I would believe an interview of James Cawley that was done with no research. Here is "Mark" most likely James post #56 admitting he is in financial trouble. http://www.topix.com/forum/city/port-henry-ny/TBDNSF55BTL8DT993/p3#lastPost —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.27.133 (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The thread you linked to mentions past troubles, not current ones. Your allegation that "Mark" is Cawley has no corroboration, nor do any of your edits to date. I could just as easily claim that you're someone with an axe to grind with Cawley, such as Anthony Genovese. Who to believe? I have just as much evidence to back up my claim as you do for yours - i.e. none. Any further attempts by you to insert unsourced information will be treated as vandalism and reverted. You've been told how things work around here - learn the rules and abide by them. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the anon was given more than enough opportunities to work within the framework to build a consensus. They chose not to do so, instead opting for ax-grinding. I've already filed the complaint. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have put the proof at the bottom of the page from Memory Alpha. They are the leading authority of Star Trek. THEY research the truth before they print it. You are taking my right to tell the truth about James Cawley and if you edit this page again I will file a complaint as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.27.133 (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Memonry Alpha is a fan-run wiki, and is not a reliable source, as it is user-generated with no editorial oversight. Since you've apparently vandalized the Cawley article there as well, I see little reason to trust your "truth". TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(ecX3) Do what you need to do, anon173. The litmus for inclusion is verifiability, and not truth. I am guessing it was again removed due to a) your lack of discussion regarding your claims and the slow-motion revert war you've been engaged in for over a month, and; b) the info you added is a skewed interpretation of those claims, which compromises the article's neutrality. For example, the citation to Memory Alpha (which we tend to avoid using, as there is little in the way of provenance as to the information offered there) note that Cawley raised the money for costs from charity and fans. Additionally, we have other citation that notes he put his own money in. However, you only noted that it was fans' money. I am going to go out on a bit of a limb and suggest that you might have a beef with Cawley - over what I can guess but will not offer here. If you find you cannot edit neutrally about a subject, and provide relevant, citable sources, you need to go somewhere where you can. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaaannnnnd that would be four reverts within a single day, anon173. Say goodnight, Gracie. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So you are stating for the record that Wikipedia is better than Memory Alpha? Arcayne you have provide no proof of James word other than his word. These are HIS own words. You are one kool-aid drinker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.27.133 (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop trying to put words into people's mouths. What *is* being said is that Memora Alpha is a fan-run wiki - and outside wikis are not regarded as reliable sources. Heck, you're not even supposed to use other Wikipedia pages as a source, as *anyone* could have edited those pages. That's why there are guidelines for citing reliable sources - which boils down to the idea that articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Memory Alpha does not meet that criteria. You don't meet that criteria - you barge in here and delete sourced statements (with reliable citations), and give little reasonings other than "I say so, so it's true!" You give no easily verifiable sources, so it's little wonder that your deletions are reversed. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This wikipedia is free to everyone and you have closed it. I still do not understand. Are you disagreeing that James was only an extra? Do you think he had speaking lines? Are you under the impression that he is a member of the Screen Actors Guild. Do you know how much he was even paid. That would tell you very easily if he was an actor or extra. As for funds, everyone knows he is always asking for money. Do you think he bought all the items for the set??? Then why is he always asking for donations. Please tell me that Gary Evans and Greg Schnitzer have not contributed A LOT of money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.27.133 (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What proof do you offer? What published, reliable, and/or verifiable sources have you offered to back up your assertations? None, so far as I can see. And again, you're trying to put motives to other people that have no basis in reality. You do not know for a fact that Cawley is an extra - none of us can know that until the film comes out. The present wording is accurate - yours, while possibily true, is unsourced, which is why it gets removed. Your speculations here about SAG or pay don't mean anything - heck, for all we know, they gave him a few lines and Taft-Hartley'ed him, which makes it all a moot point - but I'm not putting that in the article, because a) it's irrelvant right now, and b)again, unsourced.

Also, you keep claiming "everyone knows" certain things... again, reliable sources? You want us to take everything you say at face value, but I'm sorry, but an anonymous person hiding behind an IP from Murietta, CA isn't exactly a great source. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a few policies and guidelines you need to learn (or brush up on) to effectively discuss your point of view, 173anon. The first (and to my mind, the key policy on point here) is Verifiability. In Wikipedia, it is not important whether something is true or not. It matters if you can prove it by verifiable sources.

As well, reliability comes into play. Just as we cannot include our own personal beliefs, we cannot take the personal writings of folk who are not notable enough (on their own) to include. This excludes some fan-written websites, blogs and forum discussions. There is far too much room for manipulation in those venues; we can control some of that with our editors here, but since we cannot exclude that from those other sources, we do not allow it entry.

Lastly, neutrality is a huge consideration in Wikipedia. While not articles are objectively neutral, it is something we are supposed to strive for. Your interpretation of the sources doesn't seem neutral to at least two other editors who have little in the way of contact with each other. That should tell you something.

The reason why these policies are being enforced extra-strictly here is that this article is a biography of a living person. We can call Chairman Mao a green-toothed pedophile, but the fellow is dead, and our words will have no effect upon him. James Cawley is alive, and our words have the potential of damaging his career, reputation and ability to pursue a livelihood. Therefore, we cannot include information that is potentially damaging to him without verifying that information via very reliable, objectively neutral sources. After all, if we were editing an article about you, I am sure you would want the same protections we must afford Mr. Cawley.

This is two different occasions that you have had to be reported for disruptive editing. I am very glad that you are here, discussing these matters with us, and I certainly hope that you continue to do so. However, you need to understand that these edits you continually add are going to be removed every single time they occur, unless and until you provide far better citations than you have. You need to understand that your efforts are being wasted edit-warring it in. I do not say that to discourage you, but to make it clear that you are skating on thin ice. You have dodged a bullet twice; the next time you offer the same edits without sufficient citations, you will not like the consequences. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you have blocked me from editing and have taken my 1st Amendment right but you are allowed to write anything. I will let you put in James Cawley was an extra in the Star Trek movie because he said it. I have printed out the Trekmovie page so do not have them delete it. Please add James Cawley was an extra in the Star Trek Film. The reference being James own words....http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/12/editorial-james-cawley-on-the-new-star-trek-movie/
"121. James Cawley - November 12, 2008 To those of you who feel I have sold out etc. You are dead wrong. NO ONE loves The Orignal Star Trek more than me. No one is more devoted to it’s look and feel, for Christ’s sake, I own a full scale bridge set and play Kirk in my spare time! I have poured more of my life into classic Trek than I care to discuss. Being an extra in the film has nothing to do with my opinion either. "
Please tell me this is enough for you now and add that he was an extra. Thank you173.55.27.133 (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Er, could you please offer a citation that isn't broken, please? And the article was locked as an alternative to blocking you indefinitely as a disruptive vandal. Consider yourself extremely lucky. I am not sure what is really the subtext of your edits - and frankly, I don't think I want to know - but it needs to stop. Find good cites and we are all copacetic. Don't find them, and we cannot include the statements. It isn't complex. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No one's taken away anyone's First Amendment rights - the article is not locked, it is merely semi-protected, which prohibits new and/or anonymous IP editors from editing it - a wise move in the face of vandalism - which, let's face it, is what got you in hot water to begin with, Mr. Anonymous from Murietta. Your recent attempts to cast yourself as a victim and canvass other pages for support appear to be backfiring as well[1], since your edit history shows the real truth. Now, to your reference - the link worked for me - however, nowhere in the actual article does Cawley state what our friend from Murietta claims - that's in the comments section - which could be anyone. It's probably Cawley, but since that section is unverifiable and not a reliable source, we cannot include it. As I've said before, the present wording is accurate and sourced - your additions and removals are unsourced, which is why they get removed. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you have not taken my proof as fact but James Cawley word as fact, I have now written to Paramount, JJ Abrams at Bad Robot and the Screen Actors Guild informing them that James Cawley said he was an actor in the new Star Trek movie. Let us see how they respond to James.173.55.27.133 (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, our not trusting your word is not because we hate you, or think your Mom dresses you funny or anything; its because your word, my word, FennShysa's word - none of us are citable. That is one of the main differences betwixt us and a fan forum. We don't muse. We do not connect the dots. (We are also not Montel Williams, but that's a quote from another series and another article). The citations you have to bring to the article for a living person have to be far more reliable, verifiable and just plain more sturdy than with other articles, because there is a real potential for someone to get hurt if unreliable information is allowed to be added. I have heard the same as you that Cawley has a cameo in the new film (and no, I am unsure if that is simply code for 'extra' or not, but who can tell with the Asshats of Hollywood?), but the citations you are bringing here don't meet Wikipedia's standards. We don't play detective, and we do not connect the dots. Ever.

I certainly hope that if anyone posts a response to your letters that they do so in a publicly available format, so we can verify its veracity. Without being able to do so, we might not give it the weight you feel it deserves. `- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

10 months on, has anything happened to resolve this?--86.166.139.37 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What is there to resolve? We had a persistent anon IP with an axe to grind who didn't want to work within the system, and that editor never returned. Case closed, IMHO. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have talked to the person who started this personally, and I believe it is fully resolved...

Best,

Robert

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 19:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on James Cawley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100521023912/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/archives/entertainment/1997/01/19/1997-01-19_a_thin-king_man_s_elvis_cawl.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/1997/01/19/1997-01-19_a_thin-king_man_s_elvis_cawl.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)