Talk:Karl Stefanovic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Karl Stefanovic article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Flag
Portal
 Karl Stefanovic is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television.
Assessment comments
This is not a forum for general discussion of Karl Stefanovic or "The Today Show".
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

Contents

[edit] Republic vs Monarchy issue

'almost an entire program was devoted to a discussion of the Republic issue' This statement seems to be biased towards the republican's POV as the description was 'the Republic issue'.Serenacw 05:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. A bit of sourcing would be nice to varify that situation though. - Mike Beckham 06:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

After Get This discussed vandalism on this wiki on 23 Novemeber episode, I think there will be a number of people looking to vandalise this article again - what a pain! --Mikecraig 23:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Tony Martin Rules!!!!

Yes, perhaps it needs semi-protection again? - Mike Beckham 02:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Have requested "semi" again today --Mikecraig 02:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Only Warning - Then Block

Can we make a rule for this page about anyone not adding anything to do with Karl being a robot have only one warning before being blocked? They have similar rules for certain pages. - Mike Beckham 05:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with MB --Mikecraig 22:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Under Constant Vandalism

As of my above comments I have ended up not undoing the vandalism at the moment due to the fact that it just goes straight in after being removed. Maybe it's time for the lock to apear at the top of the screen again. On a recent Pod Cast of "Get This" a caller rang in saying how he had managed to Vandalise this page since it had been taken of protection and people should get back into doing it. Funny? Yes, Funny while trying to keep something accurate? I don't think so. --MattyC3350 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to protect the page, but once it's lifted it will start straight away....it's amazing how many people love to waste their time vandalising the subject in question..Karl should feel flattered ? --Mikecraig 22:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think many people would argue with you, or care, but that's not really the point :) Plus, I doubt anyone vandalises this page on their own whim or idea... the reason is because it's on Get This. The KZA 04:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, if it was not mentioned on "Get This" then i doubt anyone would of came up with the idea.. How many people thought he sounded like a robot before it was mentioned on "Get This"? We don't want to give a pre-school kid a failing grade if he goes into class with a report on how Karl is a robot. --MattyC3350 04:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? What kind of school would make kids do a project on Karl Stefanovic? Besides, kids shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a resource anyway-not without cross checking the information. I don't understand why people are so desperate to keep a page on such a nobody accurate. Honestly who cares?

[edit] Misc

can we add some misc info and metion karl's nicknames, 'K-amn' which he calles himself, and 'Karlos' which steve calles him!

"K-amn"? Cpahor 05:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't call himself "Cam" - that's his misogynistic mate on the Today show! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.172.214 (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

C3P - 0? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.174.45 (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove anything not sourced - Follow rules?

I know the rules are never followed but How about the novel idea that one article actually follows the rules? Could start a trend on Wiki!

"Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."

Suitable references for material or remove the material? --203.192.92.73 13:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes thats the Wikipedia rules without references as it is now, its origonal research or POV which WIKI is not about. This must be deleted according to the rules.--Polygamyx4 10:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


"Career Stefanovic graduated from Queensland University of Technology with a degree in journalism in 1994 and began working for WIN Television in Rockhampton and Cairns as a cadet reporter[1]."

This is the only thing referenced and therefore follows the rules. Everything else should be deleted as it not referenced.--Polygamyx4 10:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Though, a lot of the article isn't worthy of sources. Anyone that turns on channel 9 between 6am and 9am knows he's the presenter of the Today show, and millions (for some reason) watched Dancing on Ice. If anything here is disputed, feel free to remove it pending a reliable source, however I think you'll find a lot of this is common knowledge. The KZA 10:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


So? fact is not a requisite for use in WIKI "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources"

Than again, no article on here conforms to the rules of cite reliable sources and many others. Whats the point of having any rules since this the main one is never followed? Its a joke!--203.192.92.73 12:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you dispute? The rule is that everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable as fact. The rule is not "everything must have a cited source." Best example I can think of is George W. Bush. The fact that he is president, the date of his inauguration, details of the election he won, etc. are un-sourced. It's common knowledge of which no-one disputes. If you honestly disagree with any of the very mild information on this article, then can discuss sourcing the information, but removing anything un-sourced from an article is more along the line of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point about the rules. It's also worth noting that nothing in this article really constitutes "original research", just un-sourced statements. Something that said "His great reporting on incident x lead him to become the host of Today" would be original research. The KZA 03:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sick of Undo'ing Robot changes

In the past hour I have undone about 3 changes of someone placing infomation on Karl being a robot. If the article is in protected mode this means that a regestered user must be doing this, thus I think there should be a deletion/ban of account as soon as someone does this again as its just becoming far beyond a joke. --MattyC3350 00:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You've only undone 1 change. Please don't lie when it is blatantly obvious.--Scmods 00:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your dead right someone jumped in a few seconds before I saved it to change it, please don't do it anymore, thanks --MattyC3350 00:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birthdate is wrong

I think you have Karl's birthdate wrong - you have January, when I think it is actually August.

As a regular reader of the Today show blog, he refers to his 'birthday weekend' in the blog he wrote for Monday 13th August.

Here is the link to the blog page, but you'll need to scroll down to the 13th August.

http://today.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=282627 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.26.37 (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Referencing to IMDb doesn't prove the birthdate, as they got it from you! If his own blog says' August, then surely this should be checked!

He said he celebrated a birthday, not his. It needs a better reference than that. - Mike Beckham 09:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly remember watching Today on 13 August 2007 (Monday) and Lisa dobbing him in that he had a birthday on the Sunday and that he turned 33, which would make him be born on 12 August 1974. Unfortunately, I can't find anything to back me up at the moment. Frances76 (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

However, also note that if he graduated from uni in 1994, then he has to be older than 33! The mystery deepens Frances76 (talk) 10:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandals

After all of the recent drama with the robot theme can it be made so that an edit will have to be reviewed by an administrator before it is displayed. This way the Get This listeners won't get their 10 seconds of fame. Cpahor 07:37, 23 Borgust 2007 (UTC)

The page is already semi-protected which doesn't allow anon users or new accounts to edit. You could request full page protection at WP:RFPP which would allow only admins to edit but it probably isn't necessary with the current level of vandalism. The people at RFPP don't like to protect pages and prevent people from making good edits unless the vandalism is more severe. Stardust8212 11:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Get This/Robot Info

I added the Get This Robot information just to test to see if this at least maybe slows down the ammout of vandalism on this page. Just that if someone comes in to do that sort of edit, they will see that there is already a section on the page discussing it. Hope I did not get anyone mad. --MattyC3350 (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)