Talk:Roy H. Williams

Untitled
Okay, we really need to clean up this article and make it look more professional. Right now it is obviously just the ravings of a group of fanboys. Admittedly, I am a fanboy of Sir Williams, but we would make him (and us) look a lot better if we got this a bit more organized and objective.

I'm thinking we first need a standard bibliography, which will allow us to clear up substantial portions of the article, and then as much of a biography as possible. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about his personal life to contribute much to the second part.

Is anybody else with me here? Zaklog 13:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This reads like an ad. This person is not relevant to 99.9% of readers. Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising (Unsigned comment)

That's basically what I was saying. I'm aware that this is far too enthusiastic about Mr. Williams, but like I said, I don't have the bio information and haven't had the time to fix this up well. As for relevancy to "99.9%" of readers, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Whether one person in a thousand looks up an entry or not doesn't particularly matter. The point is to have as complete a knowledge base as possible.

Yes, you're right: this needs cleaned up. But you can complain, or you can do something constructive. (And before you suggest it, an outright deletion is not constructive.) --Zaklog 17:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned Up
Article cleaned up today to serve as a reference article for a notable author instead of a fanboi shrine. Please feel free to contribute to this article but please cite sources and keep opinions (even glowing ones) out of the article text. Stoick (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)