Talk:Bill Plante

Certain
A particular editor seems to be expanding this article beyond what is needed.Defcool1 (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "beyond what is needed" – you do realize there are no word/character count limits in Wikipedia, don't you? I could take this article to good or featured status if I wanted to and there's nothing you can do about it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I've recommended to Bloom6132 on my user talk page that everyone calm down, stop edit warring and discuss the issues here. As a started, please could you detail your specific objections to the text that Bloom6132 has added? As they say above, "expanding this article beyond what is needed" is not a reason to remove valid cited text. There are reasons not to make articles too long, as detailed at WP:ARTICLESIZE, but that certainly doesn't apply here - the recommended point to start splitting or curtailing an article is between 60,000 and 100,000 characters of readable prose while this article only currently has 3,770 characters which is really on the short side. So I'd like to see more details on what specifically you don't like about the additions. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the contested edits and am neutral on the debate (granted, I'm also unfamiliar with the subject), but I will say that content about his being the press corps "sommelier" and bungee jumping in New Zealand is trivial and adds nothing encyclopedic to the article. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  17:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The information does not contravene the four points in WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The fact that both CBS News and The Washington Post obituaries mention his penchant for wine (not to mention the The New York Times in 1989 and The Wall Street Journal in 1999) should make it notable enough to include.  Granted, an entire (sub)section on his passion for wine would be WP:UNDUE, but is two sentences really too much? —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm with Bloom6132, the disputed material is well-sourced and adds interesting context to an article that is hardly overlong. Furthermore: Locking the article down seems to me to be a questionable admin overreaction, especially considering the recent death and current WP:ITN and WP:DYK nominations of the subject, which prevents timely editing. If there's an edit war, there's a noticeboard for that, or an admin should hand out short blocks if disruption continues after warnings. Jusdafax (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. The lock seems unwarranted. Thriley (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have made a direct request on the locking admin's Talk page. Jusdafax (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * the protection was applied because there was a huge edit war going on at the time. Accusing the admin who stepped in to stop that of overreacting is absurd. This process gives us the time to discuss rationally what we should do with the disputed edits and come to a consensus, something that is happening above. It should not be lifted prematurely. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The admin agreed, the protection was lifted, and the article worked on and posted in a timely manner at ITN, so I strongly disagree with your pinged characterization of my objections to the total article lockdown as "absurd." Perhaps, as an admin, you will act on the comment below which violates Wikipedia policy on personal attacks. Jusdafax (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of place, you are attacking. Defcool1 (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Find a new crusade, maybe someone will join. Defcool1 (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

To whomever is interested, Bloom goes on these "campaigns" and "builds" articles so they can have credit for them, etc. Not only is it "ambulance chasing" but it's highly amateurish.Defcool1 (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting comment, coming from an editor with under 100 edits. I strongly suggest you read and understand WP:NPA which concerns the "no personal attacks" policy at Wikipedia, and then strike your comment and walk away. In my view, your attack here is actionable. Jusdafax (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No comment.Defcool1 (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Didn't realize we're being all PC here. As if there needs to be elaboration. Wikipedia has something called feature articles, also good articles. Anyone who tries to debate this topic is attacked. Patently freaky! Defcool1 (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The only thing "patently freaky" is your inability to accept the overwhelming consensus, both against your edits and your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Admins don't have much interest in resolving the question of why or whether double spacing sentences is proper. If it is why? When is it used? Why is there very little discussion about the topic?Defcool1 (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's clearly set out in MOS:DOUBLESPACE (if you didn't catch that, it's indeed acceptable to use double-spacing). I'm frankly not surprised that you still don't accept it with your WP:ICANTHEARYOU attitude. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)