Talk:Mike Farrell/Archive 1

Video of Farrell Discussing Just Call Me Mike

I believe that this video adds to the value of the article and should be published in the external links section. I would appreciate it if someone would add it. Thank you.

Mike Farrell Discusses his book, Just Call Me Mike: My Journey from Actor to Activist March 13, 2007

--Uschris 19:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References in popular culture?

Is there any call for a citation of his book from the Simpsons episode Hungry Hungry Homer, "My Core Beliefs," in which he apparently hates Wayne Rogers? I would think it bears a mention. ZebulonNebulon 00:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mike on $scientolgy

Farrell, Mike (Actor): "To this day, people who tangle with Scientology find themselves subject to aggressive efforts at intimidation. Mike Farrell, who played B.J. on the television series M*A*S*H, crossed paths with the church when he contacted the Cult Awareness Network for information on a film project about child abuse. After gaining great respect for their work, he attended a fund-raising event at a private home in Beverly Hills, where he was confronted by angry picketers. 'There were people taking photographs, being very obvious, getting video footage of the guests as they went in and out - obvious harassment,' he says. Farrell says he asked one of the pickets if he was a Scientologist, and the man said yes. In an effort to be fair, Farrell had lunch with Reverend Heber Jentzsch, president of the Church of Scientology International, and investigated Scientology's charges against CAN. The actor says he found them to be based on 'sham, invective, and distortion.' Later, at a CAN convention near the L.A. airport, Farrell encountered more angry Scientologists. 'Not only did they picket, but they sort of get in your face and give you this loud and incessant spiel that doesn't allow for dialogue - it's just a kind of attempt to intimidate.' In the last few months Farrell has gotten numerous strange phone calls, one telling him (falsely, as it turned out) that an old friend had died. There have been so many that now when he gets calls after midnight at his home, he answers, 'Hubbard was crazy.' Sometimes, he says, there's a long silence before the caller hangs up." - Premiere, Sept. 1993, "Catch a rising star". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.49.98 (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Farrell hates David Shankbone's Photo

Although Farrell may dislike the outcome, I disagree with his heavy-handed tactics in edit summaries to make it seem like I was "buzzing" around him like a paparazzi at the Brooklyn Book Festival. There was very little press, and everyone was quite gracious in giving me access and photographs. Including Mike Farrell. This was taken while he was just sitting around before his panel started. I take exception to Farrell's 'anonymous' need to paint this as a "Take a hike SHankbone" issue when the very sound of the MASH theme song bored me to tears as a 6 year old boy when B.J. Hunicutt was on television. There was no need to impugne anyone's character. You were happy to take the photo, you simply don't like the way you look. You could have been more decent, like Erroll Louis, and request I reshoot you. But you were happy to take this photo, as was everyone else here at the Brooklyn Book Festival. --David Shankbone 05:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Shankbone photo is terribly washed-out. The middle of Farrell's brow is almost white in it. The dark shadows under the chin make a terrible contrast. The lips and teeth are clearly so dry that the lips are curling back (bottom) and over (top) the teeth, in an absurd manner. The alignment is just the right amount off-center to make the nose look like a disfigured caricature, as if the left nostril was lopped off and is now only scar tissue. What is the flag in the background, and what does it have to do with Farrell? Please keep the other photo. SBPrakash (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the attractiveness of the subject nor the behavior of the photographer are relevant when deciding which image is best. We look for encyclopedic value, and here the unequivocal winner is DS's picture, which is about 25x the resolution (5x bigger on each edge) and is much sharper, even at full resolution. The background flag is not distracting, and the subject is shot head-on, which is generally preferable for a portrait picture. It is also better lit. It is ridiculous that any OTRS volunteer would give any weight to an email from the article subject requesting a prettier picture. If Mike Farrell wants a more flattering picture in the article, he should provide one that is of an equal quality to the photograph we already have. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly is 648×519 insufficient for our purposes? Since when is a photo so washed out that skin tone is replaced by off-white "better lit"? How exactly can you consider lips contorted against the teeth to be anything but an insult to the subject of the photograph? A professional photographer would discard such an abomination without a moment's hesitation, and yes, that includes photographers working for any reputable commercial encyclopedia, without a sliver of a doubt. SBPrakash (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will repost what I wrote at User talk:Jimbo: "the issue is keeping our images of the highest quality, and when an image trumps that criteria, it displaces a previously-existing image. But the free culture idea does not end there: many other venues use our media off-wiki, and this is an excellent manner for Wikipedia to be a place where people go to obtain free content. Of course, for free content in the form of images and other media need to be large enough for graphics departments to use them. This is why there are no space limits, generally, for uploading good images to the Commons. Our media is used by small-town papers who can't use Getty Images, authors writing books, television news stations, etc. It makes Wikipedia relevant to the lives of quite a few artists who need images, making it essential the highest quality images are placed prominently in articles. Unfortunately, some people think images are a charity ("Why can't I have my image up for awhile?") or they think as long as its large enough for a thumbnail on an article it's fine. It's not. We need files at least 2.5MB, often, for graphics departments in other media to make good use; or even for an artist to create a poster out the image." --David Shankbone 16:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The size of an image file has a lot less to do with photograph quality than obtaining a decent exposure and pose. If there were any relative merits beyond the size of the file, I'm sure you would have mentioned some. SBPrakash (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sound ridiculous, since almost every argument you raise not only can be seen to be false to the naked eye of a casual viewer (the photograph is excellent lighting, is not distracting, and is a good photo), but your own criticisms apply to the photo you are arguing for. But since you essentially seem like a single purpose account who only started editing the day you raised your objections here, I will guess you have an agenda that is not apparent. Regardless, I am backing out of this debate over Farrell's photograph per his message on my Talk page. Enjoy. --David Shankbone 02:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detail of washed-out brow and lip issues in photo. Note that many other regions can be seen washed out by flash and perspiration in the full resolution photo.

Your resort to personal attacks shows the depth of your emotional investment in this issue. If there is anyone who disagrees that the skin tones are washed out, especially on the brow and under the eyes, or that the lips are not contorted against the teeth, then they have been silent in the several places that you have complained about this issue. I commend you for your decision to back out of the debate. SBPrakash (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no personal attack, and you are welcome to go to ANI and report me to be told that. But what you are pointing out are not flaws with the photograph, but physical aspects of Mike Farrell...and if anything are showing the high quality of the photo in that you can zoom in on his teeth and point out a discoloration on his lip. Pretty funny. I've taken this page off my watch list. The photo I took will always exist if someone in the future wants to use it. --David Shankbone 13:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - it wasn't that he requested a "prettier picture", it's that he supplied one. DS (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(note that "DS" here is NOT "David Shankbone") DS (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a high res image (comparable to the one from David Shankbone) is needed, then why can't Mike Farrell be asked to supply one (with licence) of suitable resolution? That way, the question can get back to which is the better illustrtation for encyclopedic purposes, which is surely the issue of importance for WP content. EdChem (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:B. J. Hunnicutt.jpg

The image File:B. J. Hunnicutt.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Sources

I use multiple firefox add-ons which I trust with the livelihood and security of my computer. The most important one, which I love, is Web Of Trust or WOT. It is program/website/group of people which other users rate websites based on four various factors. Feel free to search it if you want more information. The point I'm getting at is that the first citation on this site (which leads to: todaysunderratedstars.20m.com) is rated as dangerous. It should be removed and a more reputable source should be used.Aramilalpha (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]