Talk:Gabriel Iglesias/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled thread

I added: Gabriel was born in a choclate cake , better yet known as fluffy man, graduated from Wilson High in Long Beach, Ca. He continued his education as a Long Beach City College student and graduated in 1996. reference: http://www.myspace.com/fluffyguy Adriana Villafana-Reynoso 10:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am changing the line He is best known for making fun of everything including his size back to the previous version. Iglesias' act focuses primarily on the fact that he is obese. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 15:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

For as much as I agree that he rocks, I removed it from the main page.Shawn 15:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC) hes the shiz

According to IMDB he does not do voice work for Family Guy. But I can't seem to edit the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resiak (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

His Official Web Site say he was born in San Diego, California, not Long Beach, California, changed article - DrewBe —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrewBe (talk • contribs) 20:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Another thread

This article needs A LOT of work. A big portion of the information is out of date, and some significant work needs to be done. Gabriel is one of the biggest comedians of the time, no pun intended. I changed it briefly to point out that his "Fluffy Shop Tour" is currently touring, and has been for a few weeks. Come on, Wikipedia. Fix this man's page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.40.13 (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC) born in choclate cake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguelchunks (talk • contribs) 05:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Last Comic Standing?

This article does not mention that he gained his fame from Last Comic Standing. Very odd, thats why he's famous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.115.114 (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from BigFreaky, 27 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Would like to add - Season 3 episode 8 to the credits section for 'premium blend'

BigFreaky (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Not in the right format. You need to tell us exactly what you want changed in change x to y format. Mr R00t ^{Talk 'tribs} 18:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Done The request was quite intelligible. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from RaydrNashun, 25 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the "Credits" section, please Change

• 2010: Conan

to

• 2011: Conan

His appearance on Conan was on January 18, 2011. RaydrNashun (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

References

 Done Baseball Watcher 04:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011

External links

• [1]

• [2]

JakesGotMilk (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: There are already too many external links. — Bility (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011

Link to Last Comic Standing:

• [3]

JakesGotMilk (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: There are already too many external links. — Bility (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Stand up revolution

There is absolutely nothing on wikipedia about his show stand up revolution. It's been on for a few weeks so there should definitely have it at least mentioned on his wiki page, when other shows have their own pages and they aren't even on the air yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.115.153 (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Gabriel Iglesias 01.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gabriel Iglesias 01.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal life

The Personal Life section is dismal, at best. Can someone please add some information. Siblings, relationships, anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.30.125 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there some reason you can't do this? Nightscream (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I was watching one of his shows recently. It was dedicated to his mother who had died. 63.3.2.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Amazon as a reference

I removed Amazon as a reference from the article. The link does not conform to consensus as a reliable source, is a link to a DVD sales site for the advertised DVD (WP:NOTADVERTISING#5), and is not relevant to the article. The content in question is, "In November 2009 Comedy Central released the DVD of the show Gabriel Iglesias: I'm Not Fat... I'm Fluffy.", and the link provides no information related to Comedy Central, nor information on the DVD, just the cost of purchasing the DVD along with several other prices.

I left a detailed edit summary and the link was added back with only "cite" in the edit summary. I will remove the reference again and "if" an editor feels that blatant advertising is acceptable on Wikipedia that editor can and should take the issue to the WP:RSN. Of course another option would be to add the link back and I will bring it to the noticeboard. In fact, I guess I will bring it there anyway since my good faith edit was in effect reverted by re-inclusion. This is a WP:BLP and the criteria concerning content, references, and external links are more stringent that other articles. Otr500 (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The cite is not advertising, "blatant" or otherwise. Your statement that it provides no information on the DVD is false, as such listings typically list things like the name of the publisher and date of publication/release for such media, which is why I have often cited Amazon as a source for the names, publishers and release dates of books and other media. The fact that the website is a vendor does not mean that therefore, WP:NOTADVERTISING is being violated. WP:NOTADVERTISING is only violated when the sole purpose of a given publication is advertisement. If the date of release of that video is thought to require a cite (and this itself is questionable, since the credits of any media, which include year of creation, can be used as that media's source), and Amazon provides the year of release, then Amazon is a reliable source for that information. Just because Amazon is a vendor does not mean that that fact is somehow tainted by association. It is perverse to think that such information not only requires a source other than the video itself, but that you're going to find one in some scholarly publication rather than from vendors. Nightscream (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It is more than perverse, almost mind-blowing, to see someone defend a link to Amazon, that contains at least 30 instances of prices, one of two video's at the top that proclaims, "Own the DVD today, two links to shopping carts (one with free shipping), and a link (and shopping cart) to items by "pocketacesdvds" fulfilled by Amazon, and somehow claim "The cite is not advertising, "blatant" or otherwise". I did miss the information farther down the ad with information concerning the DVD. "If" the Amazon link would have placed the DVD information at the top it would not mask that the site is intended to promote the DVD.

I also consider it to be improper to add material back that is questioned, and doing so with only "cite" as an edit summary is strange.

The policy WP:Verifiability provides the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.". Since you defend the Amazon DVD sales reference I will do as I stated and see if I can get clarification on the link. Please note that poorly sourced material, especially on a BLP, can be removed so if interested you might want to see if there is a better reference. Otr500 (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the Amazon page's purpose is to sell something does not mean that that is the purpose of citing it. As I mentioned above, the fact that Amazon contains vendor information does not mean that the information on the item's release date is not reliable. If the sole intent and function of citing that page is to support that release date, then doing so is perfectly acceptable. The fact that other information exists on that Amazon page doesn't serve to mitigate this. It's not as if the presence of one type of information that we are not interested in serves to "taint" information that we are interested in, as Amazon's desire to sell the DVD does not mean that therefore, ipso facto, the release date it mentions is less likely to be true. If anything, the opposite is true: Amazon's reliability as a notable vendor is what makes the listed release date reliable. Reverting one instance of content removal is perfectly reasonable when the reasoning offered for the removal is so unambiguously lacking in merit. Since your argument is basically that the release date is not reliable simply because the person offering it is selling the item is a non sequitur. As long as Wikipedia's motive in citing that source is not one of advertising, then the fact that Amazon's is is irrelevant. WP:NOTADVERTISING is only violated when the sole purpose of a link or piece of information is one of advertising. Nightscream (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You maintain that position as long as you can convince yourself but I would like you not to try to impugn my intelligence. The link is to a 100 % advertisement page with the only purpose being to sell the DVD. It is self evident just by clicking on the link and it is amazing that you choose to ignore that the sole purpose of that link is advertisement and overshadows some remote benefit that there may be some information that is felt to be of use. Because it might contain a release date, that my 5 year old grandson would know is outdated information by over two years, does not mean that now, even though the date is far removed and not the real issue, that we can argue that the past release (historic value of course right?) is why the link is acceptable. You are using what I feel is wikilawyering to expound on a fact that I feel itself is moot.

Your argument, if valid, would mean that there would be no such thing as an improper or not acceptable link on Wikipedia. You assert that because there is a date, that somehow is important for some reason or another, that an editor has some duty to overlook what you are conveniently denying is an improper link, because there is some reliable information contained therein.

If your rationale is accepted then any editor could use this to get an exception for any site, no matter what the consensus status as to unacceptability, as long as there was some information deemed important.

If we somehow get paid for providing such an egregious example, and the Wikipedia foundation is alright with this, then let me know so maybe I can make some extra money. Otherwise I feel that the want, expressed as a possible need, to use such a site, because there is a snippet of information buried in the agglomeration of buy buy buy this DVD, must be weighed against that of Wikipedia being presented as endorsing the product.

I don't think it is so much that there would be some information and a price to indicate one could also buy the product but having to wade through an enormous amount of prices, along with some "we will take a trade in (with some cash)", and "here are some shopping carts to assist you in making a choice on the many DVD's (not just the one) we want to sell you", just to get to confirmation that a date in the Wikipedia article is now verified, is ludicrous. This is a distraction and will more likely cause a reader to wonder, "What was I directed here to do?". Of course to spend money, buy a DVD, and----- oh yes! eventually maybe go back to that other window and continue reading the Wikipedia article I was distracted away from. So why compromise Wikipedia, distract readers from the intent (providing encyclopedic knowledge), and direct them to another site to now absorb their time and otherwise engage them in the first place?

You may be a big fan of Amazon, and my family uses the site, but please study on this a moment from other perspectives. The "official website", listed in the infobox as well as the external links section, provides a comprehensive selection of buying pretty much anything the subject is selling, including an Amazon link to the mentioned Gabriel Iglesias: I'm Not Fat... I'm Fluffy DVD, with the same release date. His official website also ties in "Facebook", "Twitter", "YouTube", "FLICKR", "TUMBLR", "LinkedIn", "Dig", "Yahoo", "Google+", and even fluffyshop.com in case a reader missed any social networking or advertising opportunities, so there is no need to add "another instance of advertisement", for some information that is not actually questionable anyway and can be found in numerous locations linked to from the article.

The sentence that leads to the link to buy the DVD mentions a show the DVD is about but there is no further mention of the show, performed in El Paso, Texas, or a wikilink to the production company Comedy Central. These are links with a purpose of engaging a reader in Wikipedia content and a way of connecting Wikipedia together into an interconnected whole, that is more important than sending a reader off to buy some product. Otr500 (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"You maintain that position as long as you can convince yourself but I would like you not to try to impugn my intelligence." I have no idea what you mean by this. My position is based on the reasoning I have offered above. It has nothing to do with "convincing myself", or "wikilawyering", and I don't recall ever "impugning" your intelligence. Where have I done this? Just because you don't like admitting that you don't like your opponent's reasoning because it may indicate that you're wrong does not make it "wikilawyering".

"The link is to a 100 % advertisement page with the only purpose being to sell the DVD." That does not mean that this is the only purpose of citing it, a distinction I explained to you above. Repeating the same fallacy over and over doesn't change this. Again, do you or do you not deny that WP:NOTADVERTISING refers to when an edit has the sole purpose of advertising? It doesn't matter if the page has another purpose apart from this. The only relevant point vis a vis WP:NOTADVERTISING is what the purpose of its inclusion in Wikipedia is. Your position seems to be that we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as if the fact that Amazon is selling something on that page somehow "taints" the reliability of the publication information on it, which is false. Well-known vendors like Amazon or Barnes & Noble can indeed be reliable sources for publication information on the items they sell. That's not "lawyering", that's understanding the spirit of the law instead of maintaining a blind, overly rigid emphasis on its letter.

"Because it might contain a release date, that my 5 year old grandson would know is outdated information by over two years.." How is the DVD's release date outdated? You're saying it didn't come out when that page indicates it did? The date when an item originally came out is the date it came out. That doesn't change.

"Your argument, if valid, would mean that there would be no such thing as an improper or not acceptable link on Wikipedia." Non sequitur. This conclusion does not follow from anything I've said. There are indeed links that are not acceptable on Wikipedia, and I've removed quite a few of them myself.

"You assert that because there is a date, that somehow is important for some reason or another, that an editor has some duty to overlook what you are conveniently denying is an improper link, because there is some reliable information contained therein." This is a distorted Straw Man on your part, and has nothing do with anything that I've "asserted". Because there is reliable information in there that is useful to a Wikipedia article, completely apart from the function that page serves for Amazon, is precisely why it isn't improper in the first place. Being a "fan" of such a site is completely irrelevant to this.

"If your rationale is accepted then any editor could use this to get an exception for any site, no matter what the consensus status as to unacceptability, as long as there was some information deemed important." Again, this is a non sequitur, and a false Slippery Slope Argument. That one argument you make about a source not passing WP:IRS is false does not mean that therefore, ipso facto, all sources will be acceptable under that policy. How you get from that Point A to that Point B, I don't know, but it's a completely false argument. Each source is analyzed individually for its merits. That one is acceptable does not mean that all of them are.

"I don't think it is so much that there would be some information and a price to indicate one could also buy the product but having to wade through an enormous amount of prices, along with some "we will take a trade in (with some cash)", and "here are some shopping carts to assist you in making a choice on the many DVD's (not just the one) we want to sell you", just to get to confirmation that a date in the Wikipedia article is now verified, is ludicrous." One does not have to "wade" through anything. When I go to that page, either I scroll down to where I know the publication details are located on Amazon, or I just do a find on the phrase "release date". Your exaggeration of this process, which invokes images of some innocent victim of a flood slogging through the deluge while fending off hostile merchants, is irrational.

"...for some information that is not actually questionable anyway and can be found in numerous locations linked to from the article." Information on Wikipedia can be challenged, which is why it needs to be sourced per WP:V. Whether Iglesias has links to other sites on his own site is immaterial.

"The sentence that leads to the link to buy the DVD mentions a show the DVD is about but there is no further mention of the show, performed in El Paso, Texas, or a wikilink to the production company Comedy Central." Then add it. You've had a week to add such material, so what's keeping you? Is a citation of Amazon preventing you from doing so?

"These are links with a purpose of engaging a reader in Wikipedia content and a way of connecting Wikipedia together into an interconnected whole, that is more important than sending a reader off to buy some product." One more time for the cheap seats: The link does not "send" anyone off to buy anything. It merely provides a source with which the reader can verify the information in question. Nothing more. The mere existence of a link in an article does not have the ability to make anyone buy anything. Inanimate objects like links do not have the power to make anyone do anything they don't want to do. Nightscream (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Good responses. GFHandel ♬  23:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I still find it amazing that you can come up with the verbiage to support your position that that page, on a site with the sole purpose of selling, does not scream "buy these DVD's". You advertise as long as you can get away with it. It is a terrible link, that you vehemently support, and any actual verification provided is buried beneath a barrage of sales promotions to buy DVD's that the reference on the one line in the article points to. Of course the entire article, a BLP with a citation tag, has horrible references anyway so why should it matter right? You probably actually believe, "Inanimate objects like links do not have the power to make anyone do anything they don't want to do", but that is not the reason to exclude links that are promotional. Just being promotional is the reason for exclusion. The reference link is promotional and there is no doubt about that no matter how much you argue that the moon is made of cheese.

It simply is mind boggling that you, or the esteemed GFHandel can actually hold this position. According to your rationale just about any reference link can be added to Wikipedia as long as there is some small, inconsequential tidbit of information, that can be argued as relevant, important, and not found anywhere else, and providing an editor (or more than one) fights hard enough for inclusion, no matter what the policies intent are. Let's argue that the blatant sales advertisement is deemed somehow not the main reason for the site and most probably the link but a date of release that was most likely not an issue anyway. This sales link is for more important than a reference to support information about the person, his life, and other article worthy information since both are lacking. It still makes me wonder if there is a place I can sign up to get paid to support such advertising pages.

• Other areas of concern:

The first reference link is a self-published website;

WP:SPS states, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people".

WP:SELFPUB#5; so long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources".

A BLP is held (alright--should be, current article notwithstanding) to a higher degree of scrutiny and standards. This article only has his personal webpage as a source and anyone can do that. Arguing to keep a blatant advertisement reference (yes I will still call it that BECAUSE IT IS WHAT IT IS), when the entire article is in serious need of citations, might explain the need to keep one more reference, no matter how dubious. This guy, as famous as it would appear he is, does not appear to have anything written about him in other sources except his website. Since this appears to be the case I guess it is alright to argue for inclusion of advertising references while leaving in unquestionable original research such as, Iglesias' comedy employs a mixture of storytelling, parody, characters, and sound effects that bring his personal issues to life. and, He often references about his weight, talking, for example, about how little dancing it takes for him to work up a sweat at the nightclub, or how hearing his girlfriend coo the words "chocolate cake" over the telephone works in a manner akin to phone sex for him. He sometimes refers to the "Five Levels of Fatness", and labels himself as the fourth (six levels in his last Comedy Central special).. There is no source to corroborate his websites very close wording, hilarious mixture of storytelling, parodies, characters and sound effects that bring all his personal issues to life., and a reader is not suppose to have to buy the DVD to determine if these statements are true. Following the link provided will give them opportunities that can not be missed. Surely there are some reviews or other sources somewhere to back this content up?

Whoever wrote the Gabriel Iglesias webpage (fluffyguy.com) has determined that Iglesias comic routine follows what is written above but this is biased. I might think I am funny and state this on my website, but this is why there are Wikipedia policies and guidelines requiring other sources, especially on a BLP.

For the record; I like the guy, and think he is funny, but I am an editor so my review will not count as a reference, and I can not corroborate his life story anywhere but from his website anyway, so I guess we should just take what he has written as the gospel truth right? By the way; you used a comment, "When I go to that page, either I scroll down to where I know the publication details are located on Amazon, or I just do a find on the phrase "release date".", and this whole process has nothing to do with "your" ease of finding, or ability to find, information "you" know the location of but the concerns of the general reader. It doesn't matter anyway since arguments such as yours and support of this seriously blatant advertisement reference is what some want Wikipedia to evolve into anyway. Have a nice day. Otr500 (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Any actual verification provided is buried beneath a barrage of sales promotions to buy DVD's" Again, your characterization of the Amazon page is emotive, and irrational. "Buried beneath a barrage" and "wade through an enormous amount of prices" are not descriptions. They're characterizations. If you want to argue why citing that page is inappropriate, you're going to have to do so using evidence and/or reason-based arguments, and not with language whose only function is that it's melodramatic. There is no "barrage", and nothing is "buried" under anything. The material relevant to Wikipedia's needs is in the Product Details section, just as with any other item sold by Amazon, and the presence of purchase information does not serve to mitigate or taint its reliability, except in your imagination. Whenever I used Amazon for such publication info, I just scroll right to that area, and view it. I am not magically pulled away from it by the ordering info elsewhere on that page that is of no interest to me.

"According to your rationale just about any reference link can be added to Wikipedia as long as there is some small, inconsequential tidbit of information, that can be argued as relevant, important, and not found anywhere else, and providing an editor (or more than one) fights hard enough for inclusion, no matter what the policies intent are." What makes you think that you know that policies' intent so much better than everyone else on this site? You've accumulated 1,489 edits since January 2008. I've accumulated 62,972 since March 2005. So why don't you stop pretending policy intent is determined solely by your argument by fiat, without any sort discussion, argument or exchange of ideas?

A publication, online or print, can be cited as a source to support a given bit of information if the source is reliable. Just as a phone book can be used to prop up a table with an iffy leg, so too can publications have multiple purposes for different people. The fact that a publisher has a function for a publication that is different from Wikipedia's does not mean that it is disqualified from Wikipedia's use of it, because if it did, then that would mean that Wikipedia would be restricted to citing only other encyclopedias as sources, which is obviously stupid. Peter David doesn't write his regular column in the Comics Buyer's Guide in order to provide encyclopedic content. But that doesn't mean that it can't support material in his article about the city in which he grew up. When Rush Limbaugh mentions in one of his books his feelings about abortion, and why he used the sound effects of a vacuum cleaner and infant screams during phone call-ins to his radio show, he's not trying to write an encyclopedia or an academic paper. He's promoting his point of view. But that doesn't mean it can't support material in his article about his viewpoint. When Dave Thomas of Skeptical Inquirer challenges the idea that thermite was used to bring down the World Trade Center, I don't think he's thinking of creating material for an encyclopedia. But we can cite his statements nonetheless. That's not a "rationale". That's adhering to the spirit and intent of Wikipedia policy in a reasonable, common-sense way, rather than a perverse one.

If you don't agree with this, consider this:

In the Wikipedia articles for just about any company: Walmart, Sears, Kmart, Apple Inc., Procter & Gamble, H&R Block, Barnes & Noble, and yes, Amazon.com, what do you find both at the bottom of the Infobox and as the first link in the External links section? You find a link to company's official website. Now why would that be? Those websites serve only to sell or otherwise promote the goods or services that those companies sell, don't they? The reason those links are included is because it is reasonable, on a Web-based encyclopedia, to include the url or link to the company's website in question. In other words, those links have encyclopedic value for Wikipedia, even if that isn't what those companies created those websites for in the first place. In other words, information, such as that found in publications such as websites, can have two different values or functions for two different users. Your position seems to be that WP:NOTADVERTISING's intent (and for that matter, WP:EL, which covers the External links sections) is that if a publication has an advertisement function for its publisher, that it somehow cannot have a different function for someone else, as if its intended original function somehow precludes, mitigates or "taints" an emergent, by-product function. This reasoning does not follow, which is why it is not the intent of that policy, and attempting to argue otherwise is just pedantry. Yes, Amazon's reason for that page is to sell something. That does not mean we cannot use it for a different purpose, in this case, the video's release date. Thus WP:NOTADVERTISING only applies to material hosted on Wikipedia that has no function other than promotion or advertisement, such this material or this material, which you can see that I have removed from articles.

Unless, of course, you think that such articles shouldn't haven't a link to the company's website, in which case.......feel free to bring that argument that to the rest of the editing community.

Now if you can falsify the above, explain why it's wrong or its reasoning not cogent, then do so. But merely scoffing at it or calling it "mind-boggling" does not serve to do this, and neither does sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La-la-la-I'm-not-listening...!", which is what you appear to be doing when you just mindlessly say the same thing over and over and over again, as you did when you remarked, "The reference link is promotional and there is no doubt about that no matter how much you argue that the moon is made of cheese". Either address my counterarguments, or stop wasting my time.

"...inconsequential tidbit of information.....a date of release that was most likely not an issue anyway" If you want to argue that a video's release date does not require a source, you're more than entitled to, but that's a separate argument pertaining to WP:V, and one that should not be conflated with with an WP:IRS argument.

"The first reference link is a self-published website; WP:SPS states, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people". WP:SELFPUB#5; so long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources"." Nice little bit of quote mining you're doing there. Did you honestly convince yourself that just maybe, I wasn't familiar with that policy, and that I wouldn't point out your attempt at cherry-picking which portions of it to quote out of context?

The official website of a BLP article's subject is not a "third-party source". It's a primary source, and primary sources may indeed be used to support information about a subject so long as the information in question is not unduly self-serving, promotional, or controversial. If it is, we use secondary sources. On the WP:V policy page, just below the section on Self-Published Sources that you quoted, is a section called Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves that reads:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as the material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Thus, your argument that the first link is a self-published third-party source was a blatant lie on your part. We know this, because we know you read the portion of the policy right below about self-published sources about themselves, which the link to his website is. But you couldn't resist double-dipping to make your bullshit argument, so you pretended that it was both of those things, and figured I wouldn't notice. Nice try.

As for WP:SELFPUB#5, the article is not based primarily on that source, and your statement that he "does not appear to have anything written about him in other sources except his website" is another lie on your part. There were, as of your last message on this talk page, four sources in the article, three of which were secondary sources (including the Amazon cite). That isn't much, but then again, no one said that the article was a well-developed one not in need of work, as Wikipedia is a constant work-in-progress with no time limit. (Please see WP:POTENTIAL.) Me, I decided to add some material to the article from three more sources (two of which I found through Google, one of which was a link already in the article under External links), and also removed the unsourced original research that you pointed out appeared to have been taken from his website (which I did not write, mind you), something that didn't take too long, and which you could've done if you were interested in actually improving the article, instead of offering fallacious and intellectually dishonest complaints on this talk page. Nightscream (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2012

Please change "Gabriel Iglesias was born Gabriel J. Iglecias in San Diego, and he was raised in Bakersfield." to "Gabriel Iglesias was born Gabriel J. Iglecias in San Diego, CA, and spent most of his life in Long Beach, CA" because this is correct per his website: http://fluffyguy.com/bio

Under "Credits" section - please add "Gabriel Iglesias Presents Stand-Up Revolution 2011" per: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0407101/#Self Discojen79 (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Jenny

I fixed the Long Beach reference, and added the credit. I did not cite imdb, since sites with user-generated content like imdb cannot be used as sources under Wikipedia:USERG. It doesn't really need a cite anyway, since fictional works are their own sources for their mere existence per WP:PSTS. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 September 2012

considering "Oh Hell no" is listed could someone list the other five levels of fatness, "Big,Heavy, Husky, Fluffy, and Damn" 68.33.74.66 (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Damn TV

Should there be a mention of his YouTube show "Damn TV: Extreme World News"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.248.133 (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2015

Please add to Early life: Gabriel told The Woody Show that his mother used to drill him to hit the floor when they heard cars revving outside, in order to avoid drive-bys[4].

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebas1266 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. MadGuy7023 (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gabriel Iglesias. 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/20101029172804/http://www.nbc.com:80/Last_Comic_Standing/comics/gabriel_iglesias.shtml to http://www.nbc.com/Last_Comic_Standing/comics/gabriel_iglesias.shtml

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberbot II (talk • contribs) 14:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2016

In 2014-15, Gabriel was a recurring star in the ABC sitcom Cristela. This isn't stated in the chart of television shows he's been in. In the Television chart, please add:

| 2014-2015 | Cristela | Alberto | Recurring Role |- 67.84.25.238 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Verified and updated. -- Dane2007 ^talk 17:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at his filmography.

He's been in a lot of animated films. I think it's safe to say that he's replaced George Lopez as the voiceover industry's favorite Hispanic comedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77A0:90:D46C:2F8:97B7:B7BB (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Gabriel has quit touring

Gabriel has stopped touring in order to lose weight he said tonight on facebook if he never performs again he is happy to have done it and leaves satisfied with his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.202.19.158 (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2017

Define the acrynom please in the personal info section.

Add Diamond Dallas Page (DDP) Yoga. LunaCelestial (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2018

I would like to edit Gabriel Iglesias' residence 2600:1700:2480:93C0:F045:D277:D21:313 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Gabriel 2009.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

"c" or "s"?

The article currently contains the following statement:

''His mother placed a letter "c" in his surname in retaliation for his father's absence during his birth, though he does not use this spelling in his everyday life, preferring to use the one with the "s".''

Where do I begin? First of all, where did his mother supposedly put this "c". Did she spell it "Iglesiac"? "Iglecias"? "Iclesias"? "Cglesias"? Secondly, if that is actually his legal name, then why does the opening sentence read like this:

'''Gabriel Jesus Iglesias''' (born July 15, 1976), known professionally as '''Gabriel Iglesias''' and comically as '''Fluffy''', is an American comedian, actor, writer, producer and voice actor.

and not this:

'''Gabriel Jesus Iglesiac''' (born July 15, 1976), known professionally as '''Gabriel Iglesias''' and comically as '''Fluffy''', is an American comedian, actor, writer, producer and voice actor. ??

Finally, to answer these questions, I went to the source given, which is his official webpage, and I cannot find mention of this supposed factoid. Accordingly, I am deleting the sentence altogether. Unschool 03:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

His legal name is Gabriel Iglecias. Source. I'd recommend changing the introduction text to the following:

'''Gabriel Jesus Iglecias''' (born July 15, 1976), known professionally as '''Gabriel Iglesias''' and comically as '''Fluffy''', is an American comedian, actor, writer, producer and voice actor. He is known for his shows ''I'm Not Fat… I'm Fluffy'' and ''Hot & Fluffy''.

Drirton (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. SITH (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I cannot edit the page. I can only view the source. Drirton (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)