Talk:David Firth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article is within the scope of the Web Animation WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Web Animation. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Just letting you all know, the sock link later on in the page goes to a page about socks... As expected. --71.206.10.104 19:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I really don't care what you guys think about it I'm restoring this page as best as I can. You cut everything away from it and made the entry useless. If you are going to do that to one flash artist you might as well go hit the rest of them. Joseph Blanchette still has all the information regarding his works but Firth doesn't? What gives?

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 June 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 27, 2004. The result of the discussion was redirect to Salad Fingers.

Rossami I don't understand why David Firth requires deletion, David Firth is a central personality in the flash/idm community. User:Raddicks GMT 07:10, 23 July 2005.

I agree, a lot of people see him as an artist and theres no reason why he shouldnt have an article here, especially when theres other junk that needs to be gotten rid of.

Contents 1 Brief descriptions for other of his works. 2 Simple question 3 Jerry Jackson section is too biased 4 delete or redirect 5 Clean up 6 Restored the information 7 Restored Again 8 Related 9 STUB 10 Dual/Duel 11 Awful Description 12 BBC4 screenwipe 13 Time to kill this article 14 Vandalism 15 Homosexual as one of the main comments. 16 Copyright permission for photograph 17 TV Appearance

[edit] Brief descriptions for other of his works.

In the light of yet another deletion of the Burnt Face Man article (see also these logs), it would be a good idea to provide a brief description of each Firth work listed in the David Firth article. ╫ 25 ^{chatter ↔ grafitti} 11:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC) ╫

[edit] Simple question

What is his actual nationality and profession?

He is an englishman, I thank you.

Putting 'British' is far too vague, I changed his cited nationality to English. To answer your question about his profession; he is a professional animator. SynthesiseD 20:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Jackson section is too biased

Don'tcha think? And it specifically states that his cartoons are "Extremely funny". There are a lot of people who don't think that you know.

I have to agree that the text is a bit bias, but I'm doubtful about the subjectivity of his movies (if there is any) to do serious rewriting. I'll look around a few sites to verify people's comments on him. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 20:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC) ╫

Note - the mods/admins at Fat Pie forums are deleting anyone who comments about the article's nature. You won't know the truth unless your an insider ;-)

[edit] delete or redirect

why is any of this here? Salad Fingers too. this deletion result was clear. If I feel similarly tomorrow, I will likely attempt to unwind this cluster of articles a bit. Does any of this music come close to WP:MUSIC ? Other than David's obvious frequent and widespread self-publication on the internet, what claim to fame is there? Google tests seem to show very little newsgroup hits and relatively few hits at all beyond wikipedia or message boards / blogs. If contested, then a re-nom to WP:AfD since the standing redirect decision was from way back in 2004. This reads to me like vanity. does a deviantART account and an alexa 26,000 rank website warrent an article, wikipedia doesn't think so. Add a few independant sources, and you will fare better on AfD. ∴ here…♠ 04:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to leave all this alone for now. The articles are fair, though original research needs to be kept in check. If able, please find and cite at least one independant published source, ideally non-internet (does this exist?). My gut feeling is that this entire cluster will fade away in a few short years. If David is indeed central to the idm/flash scenes, as has been claimed, cite a few references to him from respected idm/flash scene publications! Anyone who feels the urge, feel free to re-AfD and begin the process. best of luck david, make this article worth keeping ;). ∴ here…♠ 20:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

- http://www.fat-pie.com/fanorama.htm - numerous published articles on Firth. —This unsigned comment was added by 213.249.237.23 (talk • contribs) 20:54, March 15, 2006.

thanks for the link. the cult idolatry appears more impressive than work itself. apparently i just don't get it. looking forward to the feature film. ∴ here…♠ 21:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, David Firth has tons of fans. Over 100.000 according to an interview he did with Semantikon. The Fat-Pie site get insane hits everyday. He's a central person in the flash enviroment. Mainly because of Newgrounds, which he also get paid to work for now. I also think the fanpage would be a lot bigger if he bothered to update it more often.

I do not believe that comparatively low alexa ratings of David Firth's website should be enough to get this article deleted. We should not forget that MOST of his fans never even visit his website, because he submits nearly all of his work to Newgrounds anyway - Newgrounds was what made him famous, not fat-pie.com . Just the first Salad Fingers animation alone has over 1.5 million views on Newgrounds right now, and all of his cartoons (27 in total) combined have around 11.5 million views. Esn 11:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Come on, the guy deserves his own article. He's come pretty far. When there are t-shirts based on his work in Texas (being an english artist), I think it's fair to say he's a widespread phenomenon.Andral 08:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

As I said during the AFD, I have removed a lot of material from this article, since it is not reliably sourced. I left in the born in Doncaster for the time being, but it will be removed unless reliable sources are provided for it (no, his website is not good enough). The notable works was trimmed down to Salad Fingers and (for the moment since it is also unsourced) Devvo since as claim is made that it will be on TV. The rest are listed on his website. - Motor (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would his own website not be source enough for birth location? Do you think he is trying to deceive us :P? Ragzouken 23:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restored the information

I have restored the information - As I have said elsewhere one of my first times on Wikipedia was to find out more about David Firth and I was very pleased to find such a comprehensive account... All this information can be found and confirmed elsewhere... Motor obviously just doesn't like David's work - which I can understand it is not everyones cup of tea. However he has an enormous following who are interested in everything he has done... It seems Motor's other problem with David is that he sees him as a self publicist... this is blatently not the case. He puts his work on the internet and then leaves it for others to discuss and pass onto their friends... I dont know how to sign this properly but I dont think that makes my voice any less relevant - cheers Bob Slayer

Removed again... I gave my reasons, and they are fully in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, namely the complete lack of reliable sources for the information you keep re-adding. I am only listing Firth's 'notable' (that's notable in the flash animator sense of the word) work. The NPOV nature of much of the text is an additional reason for removal, if one was needed. Currently it describes him as "an internet star" known for his animation and music. Since none of his music has been published, I'm being lenient by allowing a mention at all, albeit mentioning that it is "unpublished".

As for not liking his work -- Firth's work is of no interest to me whatsoever... and I've heard the same "you must not like X" from half a dozen editors who never get around to reading WP:RS, or WP:NPOV, or WP:BLP. Let me assure you, my interests are in ensuring that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information... not an advertising platform or a fan page. If Firth is to have a biographical article here it will be one that follows the requirements of Wikipedia.

If you want to continue to edit this article (other than wholesale reversion to unacceptable versions), and discuss the finer points of what should and should not be here with reference to the policies and guidelines I linked to above... you are quite welcome to do so. I'd start by reading the documents I linked. You might also consider widening the subjects of your edits... there are certain inevitable conclusions that people jump to, "Bob", when editors spend their time reinserting WP:VANITY material into one particular biographical article and little else (other than voting on the AFD for said article). - Motor (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restored Again

I contiinue to disagree with you... I have restored the edit and suggest that editors more objective than mr Motor tidy up the article as opposed to petulant wholesale deleting...

Obsession 3) Users who are otherwise productive editors but who disrupt particular articles due to obsessive concentration of attention on them or insistence on unrealistic standards may be banned from those articles.

Cheers Bob Slayer

I have added links to Davids record label... to the record label of the two bands he has made videos for and to a recent mention in Wired Magazine and website... There are more sources and links to be added to the article... which can't be done if that fellow Motor keeps deleting it - I hope he has stopped now!

I've cut some bits from the article again. I felt it was way too long and irrelevant. A complete list of all his songs is a bit ridiculous. I also condensed the Works section to only include notable ones (ie ones that made some sort of noticable impact). Theres no need to write synopses for every single of his cartoons when you can just go and watch them for free.

I think more stuff should be cut out to be honest, but i'll see what you say first. I like David Firth, but that doesnt mean I should put everything about him on his wikipedia article. -- jeffthejiff 11:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I was waiting for a few days before coming back to this... but since someone else is now involved. Yes, a lot of things need cutting from this article. the deviantArt section is basically a soapbox with no reliable sources, just blog waffle and forum posts. The intro section needs rewriting -- he is not an "Internet Star", the term itself is POV. The mention of Jerry Jackson needs removing, since he plays silly games with admitting who it is, and it's not remotely notable. The quote from a wired "web roundup" is unsuitable. If they had an article on him, then perhaps it would be worth a quote. I want more reliable details on his claimed published "music". Links to download websites how sell via pay pal are not suitable. The external links section contains a link to a "fan's view of David's work"... unsuitable. As for "Bob's" quote about blocking from editing certain articles... yes, I'm a terrible, awful person for following Wikipedia's biopgraphy guidelines. As I said before, this isn't Firth's homepage, nor is it a fan page. If he has a Wikipedia biographical article, then it must follow the standards for this site. - Motor (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just deleted the bits which were obviously way too long. There are terms that need to be changed, and the "notability" sources arent excellent (a label that only sells 4 CDs?). I more or less agreed with your original cutdown, but i was trying be less ruthless. His music isnt really notable. Truth is, Firth himself isnt really notable as of yet, but a few of his cartoons are. Whilst a mention in Wired is nice, its only a passing mention and doesnt make him notable enough for, say, an interview with Wired. I'll remove a bit more irrelevant stuff. -- jeffthejiff 15:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment... I'm not really a huge fan of David Firth, but I think that the article is now too short. This article is now almost useless, because it is pretty much a given that anyone who types "David Firth" into wikipedia has already seen many of his works either on Newgrounds or on fat-pie.com. They'll be looking for stuff that they may not have heard of - details of how he got started, current situation, etc. None of this is currently present in the article - it currently consists only of a short mention of his most popular series, which anyone who comes looking for this page will have already seen. Esn 08:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In short, I am voting in favour of this article being expanded again. The purpose of wikipedia is to be usefull. If an article is not usefull to the majority of readers (such as this one, for the reasons I outlined above), then it might as well not exist. This seems to be an attempt by some people to delete the article without actually technically deleting it. If you're deleting its usefullness to the majority of readers, it's exactly the same thing as deleting it outright. Esn 08:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of wikipedia is to be useful. -- no, he purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encylopedia. It's not an extension of newgrounds or his home page, or a fan page. I suggest you start by reading the links I gave above... and WP:NOT. We only include verifiable information (this is policy, not an optional extra and it is given even more weight when dealing with biographical articles, WP:BLP) from reliable sources (summary: blogs, personal websites and usenet posts are ruled out), and I've stretched the definition of reliable to its limit to include the information that remains in the article. The fact that barely any reliable information exists is a reason for deleting this article because its subject is not notable... a point I made several times during the AFD which was (predictably) ignored by inclusionist editors and the closing admin. - Motor (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

One little thing... is the fact that you can go to Newgrounds and see for yourself that he submitted a lot more things than are in this article not proof enough? Does this really count as "original research"? Would it also be "original research" to mention that his flashes have been viewed millions of times (as can be seen in the Newgrounds statistics)? Lastly, is not the fact that his animations have been seen by hundreds of thousands of people enough to make this article notable? David Firth is one of only two people to actually get paid by Newgrounds to submit animations to their website (the other is Adam Phillips, and this is because of the amount of people that their animations attract. I know that you probably feel that it isn't, but it seems that most would disagree with you. Deleting the article piece by piece is a pretty underhanded way to impose your deletionist tendencies upon the rest of us without first gaining consensus.

Here's something from WP:RS, by the way:

some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to find a source, particularly when the material is not obviously wrong, absurd, or harmful. Instead of removing such material immediately, editors are encouraged to move it to the talk page, or to place the {{fact}} template after the disputed word or sentence, or to tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}} at the top of the page.

It seems to me that you have willfully ignored this. You are not an eventualist, I take it.

Here's another quote that you have also seemingly ignored:

Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is:

• relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation;
• not contentious;
• not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
• about the subject only, and does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject.

This means that what David Firth writes about himself and his work can be put in this article, as long as it is clear that it was him who wrote it.

Esn 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is -- it's a bit rich of you to accuse me of ignoring something, when I have read it all, whereas you don't seem to have. For example. the last bit, right after the part you quoted: "However, we should avoid relying on self-published material, such as a vanity-press book or a personal website, as a sole source. That is particularly true when the subject is controversial, and the self-publisher has no professional or academic standing." So what, exactly, do you suggest we use from his website? His birth place and date (where is that BTW)?

This means that what David Firth writes about himself and his work can be put in this article, as long as it is clear that it was him who wrote it., no it is not a blanket permission to repeat whatever he says himself -- that's pretty much the exact opposite of what it says.

Deleting the article piece by piece is a pretty underhanded way to impose your deletionist tendencies upon the rest of us without first gaining consensus. -- nice conspiracy theory. It's just a shame that removing unsourced material is actual Wikipedia policy (particularly on bio articles), or it might have some kind of basis in fact, rather than just being an underhanded slur used instead of facts and arguments.

Additional: Your commenting and quotes on the use of the fact template. You might like to note that that is exactly what I did for some information. I mentioned during the AFD what I was going to do, and after removing the most egregiously awful parts I added a fact template to others (go and check the edit history). Just as I recently did with the music claims -- which will be removed if no reliable sources are forthcoming. It seems to me that you have willfully ignored this. You are not an eventualist, I take it. -- and as with most of your assumptions, you are wrong. I'm willing to give information a chance... but not let it hang around indefinitely, and not at all if it is hopelessly unsourced or makes any kind of claims about others (the deviantart section, for example). - Motor (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT Mr Motor - You don't really believe that your rather extreme interpretations of the wikipedia rules are more important than making sure that Wikipedia is actually useful?? I think that the problem with what you are doing is that you are applying the rules related to something being notable to every single sentence that is included... Surely once an individual is notable then what they do becomes pretty notable... If we did what you keep doing to this article to the whole of Wikipedia then you could strip half of it back to nothing much more than stubs!

Definition of an Encyclopaedia:- "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically."

I used Ricky Gervais as an example during the deletion vote he is notable because of The Office, Extras, his work as a Radio DJ etc The band he was a member of in the 80's that only released 2 unsuccessful singles before breaking up would not be notable if it were not for Rocky Gervais... But because he is notable it is damn interesting in the context of what he went on to achieve. I am not comparing the level of success of David to Ricky Gervais more the relationship between early and later work... Just another comment it seems the main problem that those that are attempting to delete this article have with Mr Firth is that they do not believe that an internet phenomenon is worthy and notable of being on Wikipedia - which is rather ironic when you think that is exactly what wikipedia is!

So Mr Motor please stop sulking that your motion to delete David was defeated and lets make it useful, interesting and comprehensive... I propose sections for "other work" and "trivia" at the very least

If you add information that is not reliably sourced then I will remove it -- it is that simple. Your example of Ricky Gervais is meaningless, since I can find hundreds of reliable sources for who he is, and what he has done. You say: the wikipedia rules are more important than making sure that Wikipedia is actually useful?? -- the Wikipedia policies are there to ensure that it does its job as an encyclopedia... that it is a reliable source of information that has been gathered, in turn, from reliable fact-checked sources. It is not just a source of internet gossip. If you want to write an article about Firth without bothering with the onerous requirements of Wikipedia, "Bob", then good luck but you need to do it somewhere else. Try everything2.com. This article is not his website and it's not newgrounds, and it's not a fan page either. It is also not going to turn into a listing of every little flash animation that he's ever made. We already link to his website for that. As for a trivia section... if it's trivia, then I don't see a reason to have it in an encylopedia article at all. - Motor (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Monkey Productions" thing didn't have a source and is quite obviously fake. Just check here: http://www.google.com/search?hs=gfP&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22Monkey+Productions%22+devvo&btnG=Search The only result that showed up was this Wikipedia article. Please don't post false information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.41.230 (talk • contribs).

Well I just watched Devvo on E4 - yes a major TV station and it did indeed have a monkey productions logo. That's quite an elaborate hoax he's pulled off there mr Motor, he's even got tv stations in on it. Just give up, leave this page alone and go away. You have to ask yourself at some point "why am I fighting this? what's in it for me? why do I spend weeks on this website just trying to get rid of an article because I don't like the artist?" why not get a girlfriend? get a job? get out of your nan's basement and get a fucking life.

Not Fake see the listings—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.100.180.59 (talk • contribs).

What are you blathering about? I didn't post that, or make the related edit. I'm quite entitled to remove your list of insults under the remove personal attacks rule of Wikipedia... but frankly, I'd rather leave it to prove a point... "Bob". - Motor (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Motor - now it is you blathering - the comment you seemed to think was written by me was far to eloquent and spelling mistake free to be so... He hit the nail on the haid though... And why do you keep putting my name in italics? Do you think I am David Firth? Idf so then I am flattered... However alas I am not - I am just a Bob Slayer the Pope of Devvo Worship! Go out and get laid or at the very least spill your seed upon the ground! And when you have done so maybe you should kick back with a couple of cold ones and watch the Devvo man in action - you never know you might like it!! Arf Arf!

[www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4PthyDuFbk] Bob Slayer x

[edit] Related

Burnt Face Man is now on Deletion Review. Esteffect 19:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STUB

After several hundred edits and additions this artice remains a stub - so I thought it was about time it was classified as such... Come on Mr Motor - GIve UP!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.45.158 (talk • contribs).

If Firth-fans spent some of the time they waste vandalising my user page or adding drivel about Devvo being "a dead-set legend", on finding reliably sourced information instead of random stuff grabbed off any old website... then the article might start to fill out a bit. - Motor (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Admitedly some disputable things have been added to this entry - However this is most likely in reaction to your removal of any information wether it is factual or not. Here is the link for what I have just added http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:6UjEmRIRHjMJ:www.channel4sales.com/programming-and-schedules/e4-schedules.aspx%3Fdate%3D13-07-2006+Devvo+cult+internet&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&client=safari —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.45.158 (talk • contribs).

Nonsense and untruths. The reasons for removals are spelled out clearly and in detail above. If you can't be bothered to familiarise yourself with the guidelines and policies to which I supplied links, and prefer instead to vandalise users pages... that's your problem. - Motor (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Motor is funny - he really believes his crusade is just and admire that in him I also think this is funny from his profile: "What do you want? Money. A beautiful girlfriend who worships the ground I walk on. The usual stuff." Good luck Mr Motor... Hey if you get stuck I can introduce you to my sister - she really is georgeous honestly (I got all the ugly genes) however she is also mentally retarded - but thats perfect 'cos she isnt fussy what ground she worships. I am only sorry I cant help you on the money front as well - have you tried Scratch cards?

[edit] Dual/Duel

Yes... duel is right, but we are currently quoting the schedule, which used "dual". I'm not entirely sure what the correct thing to do is here, so I put it "wrong" and noted it with sic (meaning: their fault, not ours, we are just quoting them). - Motor (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awful Description

The description for Men from up the Stairs is dreadful. 'Men from up the Stairs: A bizare flash about a man monitoring who goes out the door to his office and when. The flash gets even more bizare when a man refuses to leave and is lured outside by cigarettes only to find that the door leads into a chasm.' There was no mention of the obvious symbolism for constipation, and it's basically crappy in general.

[edit] BBC4 screenwipe

I think it's worth noting that David made an animated segment for this show that can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q3zKrOsGfA

[edit] Time to kill this article

Since this godforsaken piece of shit has finally been voted for redirection, I'm going to get rid of the content, put a redirect in it's place, and see if I can't fit any of the information from this article into the saladfingers article, as per voted. Hopefully the pest who keeps restoring this page will leave it alone now that it's officially condemned. If not I'll just stay here and revert all his changes until he gives up. Yay, I like killing bad articles. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 15:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• It hasn't been voted for redirection, that was in 2004 PureLegend 18:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I cannot figure out how to properly edit the page, nor do I know what to put there as I am a new user, but there is some serious vandalism in the top paragraph and possibly elsewhere to the tune that Firth is a homosexual. It should probably be removed ASAP.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.70.178.165 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 15 November 2006.

wrong, this has been confirmed on an E4 interview and possibly elsewhere, I've restored it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.134.184.209 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 24 November 2006.

[edit] Homosexual as one of the main comments.

I don't think that he should be introduced as a homosexual internet animator, his sexuality doesn't seem to be that relevant to the article. I mean, we shouldn't remove that fact, I just don't think it should be in the first sentence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.54.3.132 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 26 November 2006.

I agree - I don't think his sexual orientation defines his work; his films don't really deal with the issue. Not primarily, anyway. There's no reason to mention it in the first sentence. Does the article on Tchaikovsky mention his homosexuality in the first sentence? No, it doesn't, because it did not define his work, and the situation is the same for David Firth. Esn 22:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright permission for photograph

The copyright page for the picture of Firth states that permission has been obtained from Firth to display the photo on Wikipedia. The problem with this is that Firth is not the copyright owner. The person who took the photo is the copyright owner. And Firth cannot authorize use of someone else's copyright. All Firth can do is release his right of publicity. 67.184.178.2 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TV Appearance

Just wanted to mention, Firth appeared in an interview on BBC 1 (10:55pm 5/12/06) on a programme called Imagine, along with clips from a couple of his movies (mostly Salad Fingers). I'm don't really know how it'd fit into the article, but feel free to slot it in where you can =) 82.19.24.188 22:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)