Talk:Ron Livingston

STOP WITH K's

No K's in Galic spelling, how many times do I have to tell you! Argh??? 129.2.175.110 07:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• It is Gaelic unless you spell it with two ells, then it is Gallic a synonym for persons or things "French" in origin.Sochwa (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia lawsuit

Should this be mentioned? http://www.tmz.com/2009/12/05/office-space-star-yo-wikipedia-im-not-gay/ 96.241.24.246 (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's best to wait for a more famous source. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Ron, the Wiki Army of Decency™ will revert any malicious info asap! Greg Salter (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

TMZ said he is suing wikipedia, but this source source http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/livingston-suing-over-malicious-online-gay-claims_1124729 states he is suing the actual person making the changes. XinJeisan (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I just read the TMZ article again, and I remember it saying he was suing wikipedia yesterday..maybe I was mistaken. XinJeisan (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it definitely said he was suing Wikipedia when they (TMZ) first broke it. tedder (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just go to the court website and look it up. I think it's $.75 L.A. County Superior Court. He probably attached Wikipedia to the complaint so that the court could compel it to reveal the identity of the anonymous person. It's common practice, how else will he figure it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.42.138 (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No, he sued "John Doe". Wikipedia will be subpoenaed and the identity of the editor will be revealed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.228.75 (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This story has also been published by United Press International[1]. From the article history, it looks like 212.22.3.8 was adding the false information. dissolve^talk 00:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A relevant section on that (shared IP) user talk page: "You repeatedly claim that people are gay and dating Lee Dennison." Seems like Dennison is the victim and the others are merely caught in the crossfire. Someone by that name is a casting director in London -- a job which might incur the enmity of someone seeking acting work. --Dhartung | Talk 00:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There is actually a User:Leedennison who made this one edit to Ron Livingston's page in 2006. The user also created a page called Lee Dennison which was deletedat the same time. XinJeisan (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. What's also funny is how the news stories are saying the courts are going to need to get permission from wikipedia to release the IPs. Qwiggalo (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That IP address 212.22.3.8 traces to Foundation 66 which is a service in London for the homeless, alcoholics and drug users, and they provide beds for resident patients. So maybe it was one of their resident unfortunates making the edits, or maybe the website simply had long-term poor security with an open proxy so that it could be used by anybody on the net.--Farry (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A few diffs.[2][3][4] Search for more with this.[5] Not sure why he wants the IPs, since there right there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It must be some internet joke, like 4chan or something. The IPs come from Colorado, the UK, and Canada. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like something 4chan would do, it's not that funny, the only funny bit is that they'd even do this in the first place. It looks like a single person is mad at Lee Dennison and is using proxies to repost that he's gay with actors. Probably casted these actors instead of the person attacking them so they're mad about it. Qwiggalo (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that those are the corrections, not the bad edits which are: [6][7][8], and those few edits do come from multiple locations, London UK, Oxford UK, and Calgary Canada, so it could be a proxy attack, but it might also be the person at 212.22.3.8 (who did the bulk of the edits) moving around occasionally.--Farry (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

hi guys, i've been noticing these 'lee dennison' inserts for a long time, I added that section on the IP address page for that editor. I have repeatedly removed the 'lee dennison' claim from this page and multiple other pages. if you check my history you'll see how many times i have reverted it! the person claimed the same about Giles Coren and instigated an edit war with me over it. Eventually he let it go. I said at the time that either he was lee dennison or else was someone who knew dennison. bizarre. blahblax (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC) ALSO - i reported him for vandalism [9] almost two years ago and nothing happened. I explicity said he was coming on here and inserting dating lee dennsion nonsence everywhere! blahblax (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds like some kind of delusional fantasy like that guy Miley Cyrus had to get the restraining order against or that momzer who wound up stabbing Monica Seles.Sochwa (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that this lawsuit against wikipedia should be mentioned under WP:DENY. If it was mentioned in the article, it would only encourage trolls even more. Looneyman (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree - plus it sounds like a non-story at the moment. There is only one source reported in every news article - TMZ, and the details are slim at best. Besides, suggesting that somebody is gay is hardly defamation... 91.37.207.92 (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

To whoever deleted what was written above, I was implying that whoever claimed that Ron Livingston was gay was a troll/vandal, not Ron himself. Mentioning the lawsuit in the article would only encourage more vandalism. Looneyman (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I feel it should be included, as it has been published in some mostly reliable sources. tedder (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It has only been published by TMZ, and every article written about this has referenced the TMZ article as a source. There is no other confirmation about it, and, it isn't even clear from the TMZ article itself who Livingston is suing. Is one article by TMZ repeated on a few blogs a notable event. Its more notable for Wikipedians that this was allowed to occur for years without it being resolved (in spite of the work of editors like blahblax as opposed to notabile event for inclusion in an encylopedia. XinJeisan (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with WP:DENY in principle and that this news "story" is notable for Wikipedia rather than Ron Livingston who clearly wants to have nothing to do with such allegations in which he is a totally innocent party.

aside: Forgot to mention that I'd already checked the other contribs by the (now-tempbanned) IP in question - one further amendment made not of a libelous nature but aiming in the direction of salacious exaggeration. Many other valid updates tend to confirm shaped IP which is problematic in resolving the matter, but will leave that to the powers-that-be. Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when is calling someone gay grounds for a lawsuit? I don't think this "lawsuit" will get anywhere, until it does, I don't believe it's noteworthy. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 18:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we don't know if the lawsuit is because someone is saying Livingston is gay, or that someone has used several platforms, including Wikipedia, to claim that Livingston is in a long term relationship with one person, even living with them, while in truth he is married to someone else, and not portraying it as a joke or parody or something. It is another reason why this shouldn't be in the article. Everyone's percpetion of this is from one sensationalistic article/title of an article from a sensationalistic gossip blog -- sometimes heard second or third hand-- as opposed to any reliable source. We do know that this has been going on for years. Just because someone is a minor star or a subject is minor should not mean that we just dismiss it when articles are edited to included unverifiable facts/rumor/innuendo/lies. In fact, it hurts wikipedia's credibility. "oh, there is nothing wrong being gay, so, why should anyone care." Well, if it isn't true, then shouldn't wikipedians care, since it is including a false statement in wikipedia? Wikipedia is a great source of information, but, ideas and thoughts like this just hurt its credibility in the long run. XinJeisan (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, there's not enough information to justify being incorperated into his article, right now. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 21:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The continued reverting of this information is making it appear that wikipedia is covering up the information about an alleged defamin wikipedia editor and is therefore complicit.. heres another source..http://www.nbclosangeles.com/entertainment/celebrity/Ron_Livingston_Sues_Over_Phony_Wikipedia_Gay_Posts-78729887.html . Information that is much less pertinent to celebrities are on there wikipedia pages all the time. -Tracer9999 (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not suing wikipedia

Ron Livingston is not suing Wikipedia according to this blog post by lawyer Ben Sheffner.--Farry (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

People Toronto Star is a very reliable source and it says, that he is suing the person behind who edited Wikipedia article about him. See here. I am surprized to see that there is no mention about it in the article. This is precedant setting, I hope he takes it all the way to Supreme court and reveals who that person is and gets some compensation for it. That is just my personal opion but I think it is newsworthy that we mention the fact that he is trying to locate the person who maligned him via the court system. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the permanent addition of this to the article only fulfill the goals of this troll to link Ron Livingston to Lee Dennison? I don't consider the fact that someone filed a lawsuit to be especially encyclopaedic. If the suit did turn out to be significant and/or precedent setting however, I would support it's inclusion, otherwise I would tend to err on the side writing conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. dissolve^talk 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is a newsworthy topic, but wikipedia is not news. If the case turns out and sets precedent then maybe it should be included somewhere but at this time the information has no lasting effect anywhere. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 20:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should wait. If the suit gains or maintains some traction, then we can add it. There needs to be more to say than just that he's suing somebody. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Evb-wiki. But if it does gain ground, it should be added- he's suing one of most visited websites on the internet (sixth most? I forget). If he was suing Youtube, wouldn't that be added? Liqudluck✽talk 03:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we wait Taprobanus (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

imo. filing a lawsuit is not a notable enough activity to be in this blp. if something comes of it, it should be in a separate article about the lawsuit that is ref'd here. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I only discovered this actor after seeing this link in a wikipeidia-related list :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Move from lead to Career

I've moved most role details from the lead to Career chronology. Any roles he's "best known" for per WP:RS have a place in the lead, IMHO. It would be great if any reviews discussing his performances could be added to Career. Other wise, that's just seems like a WP:Proseline of the filmography. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)